So John Edwards has been denied a speaking role in the Denver DNC because he cheated on his wife and repeatedly lied about it.

Instead Bill Clintoon will be the keynote speaker. :confused: :p


A while ago the NY Slimes made a rumor about an alleged John McCain affair a front page story . But when confronted with similar reports with hard evidence about John Edwards ;a former Presidential candidate and until recently a viable VP or cabinet level candidate ,The MSM told their bloggers to make no comment about it. That is all you need to know about the MSM biase.

Hmmmm : no "Obama did it" this time?

You are improving...

:D :D :D :D :D

·

Rumor has it that the Republicans are so jealous that they countered by requesting Rudy Giuliani as their keynote speaker. :rolleyes: :D

Maybe but to really put a burr under the saddle of the moveon crowd ; it looks like the RNC will feature an address by Darth Vader!!
Coooool!!

Actually I hear rumors that Bobby Jindal will do the keynote address.

Here is an observation for Tim Rutten of the LA Times.


When John Edwards admitted Friday that he lied about his affair with filmmaker Rielle Hunter, a former employee of his campaign, he may have ended his public life but he certainly ratified an end to the era in which traditional media set the agenda for national political journalism.

From the start, the Edwards scandal has belonged entirely to the alternative and new media. The tabloid National Enquirer has done all the significant reporting on it -- reporting that turns out to be largely correct -- and bloggers and online commentators have refused to let the story sputter into oblivion.



The MSM tried to suppress the story and that failed . Simularily they tried to create a scandal with the false allegations of a McCain affair and they failed


It's interesting that what finally forced Edwards into telling the truth was a mainstream media organization. ABC News began investigating the Edwards affair in October, but really began to push after the Beverly Hilton allegations. When ABC confronted Edwards with its story (which confirmed "95% to 96%" of the tabloid's reporting, according to the network), he admitted his deception.

With that admission, the illusion that traditional print and broadcast news organizations can establish the limits of acceptable political journalism joined the passenger pigeon on the roster of extinct Americana.


Old media dethroned - Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-newrutten9-2008aug09,0,3175773.column)

Babram I have to give you a greenie:D

Tom here's you ones:D because I was wondering the same thing, at least John Edwards chose a grown woman and had already told his wife about it before it hit the press.
Why don't these people just come out and admit what they have done... it always seems to leak out. Then they get to be called liars besides the fact of having poor moral judgement.

Which is worse having the affair or lying about it? You know if they lie about that they will lie about other stuff.

I watched Edwards' interview and aside from a couple of times where he sounded like the same old politician I thought he was sincere at least. I still wouldn't trust him but I have more respect for him now than I did before for taking responsibility. But, who knows what might have happened had he the fortitude to drop his presidential plans? Howard Wolfson thinks Hillary might have won Iowa (n) had Edwards dropped out, giving her the early momentum.

Alas, poor Hillary - stung by another philanderer...

So true

However ;do you really believe him when he said that the affair only happened when his wife's cancer was in remission ? Or that it had ended ? Why was he still visiting her in the hotel until 3 AM if he was not the father of the child (another lie) .

so true

However ;do you really believe him when he said that the affair only happened when his wife's cancer was in remission ? or that it had ended ? Why was he still visiting her in the hotel until 3 AM if he was not the father of the child (another lie) .

I don't know what to believe yet, but I have to give him credit for finally taking responsibility. Hopefully he disappears from the public view and that 'll be that. What's funny though, is everything Edwards said about ego, narcissism, etc. is on display in Obama... :D

The radio station I listen to was talking about this on my way home today. One person was making the argument that since he's no longer holding office, he's downgraded to a private citizen, so it doesn't matter if he has a slew of love children. Thus, the media should move on. But then there's question of payments and suspicious money transactions, and I think it's important to find out where that money came from. Private money? Campaign money? Taxpayer money? Hmmm...

I don't see what difference it makes if he did it only while his wife was in remission. It's still cheating, it's still wrong.

One person was making the argument that since he's no longer holding office, he's downgraded to a private citizen, so it doesn't matter if he has a slew of love children.

You are correct that there are questions about payouts ;probably coming from Edwards campaign war chest.

Up until the moment this was revealed Edwards was a viable prospect for either a VP candidate or a slot as a Sec. in an Obama adm.
The MSM would not have given a prominent Republican such slack .

Even the NY Slimes Public Editor takes on his own publication for ignoring the Edwards story while promoting the lies about McCain(but he claims that liberal bias had nothing to do with it... bwaaahaaahaaa!! ) .



Before Edwards's admission, The Times never made a serious effort to investigate the story, even as the Enquirer wrote one sensational report after another: a 2:40 a.m. ambush by the tabloid's reporters at the Beverly Hilton hotel in Los Angeles after Edwards spent hours in a room with Hunter and her baby; an allegation of $15,000 a month in “hush money;” a grainy “spy photo” of him with a baby.


I do not think liberal bias had anything to do with it. But I think The Times — like The Washington Post, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, major networks and wire services — was far too squeamish about tackling the story. The Times did not want to regurgitate the Enquirer's reporting without verifying it, which is responsible. But The Times did not try to verify it, beyond a few perfunctory efforts, which I think was wrong.
The Public Editor - Sometimes, There's News in the Gutter - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/opinion/10pubed.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&ref=opinion&adxnnlx=1218395077-HIE1AX64hmoF4M0yGnecCw)


I would not have published the allegation of a McCain affair, because The Times did not convincingly establish its truth. I would not have recycled the National Enquirer story, either. But I think it was a mistake for Times editors to turn up their noses and not pursue it. “There was a tendency, fair or not, to dismiss what you read in the National Enquirer,” Keller said. “I know they are sometimes right.” When the Enquirer published its first “love child” report, The Times was going energetically after the McCain story. It should have pursued the other story as well.

Up until the moment this was revealed Edwards was a viable prospect for either a VP candidate or a slot as a Sec. in an Obama adm.
The MSM would not have given a prominent Republican such slack .

That's the argument the other people on the show were making. :)

This is one area in which I believe we could be a bit more 'European'. Why does anyone care? The Clinton and Edwards situations are easily distinguishable.

The Edwards' family tragedy is sad :o

The fact that the National Enquirer, in this case, was a better source than the MSM is almost as sad. :eek: