Edwards on the cover of the National Enquirer?

Gee, Wonder Why? Some people think it's Hillary:

The Clintonite who owns National Enquirer

The political world has been holding its nose for the last twenty-four hours while peering at the weekly tabloid National Enquirer, which published a story yesterday alleging that presidential candidate John Edwards had an extra-marital affair.

"The story is false," Edwards told reporters in South Carolina today, according to a reporter who was there.

What the tabloid's readers, in politics and out, may not know is that a key owner of the Enquirer is a prominent New York investment banker and one of Hillary Clinton's key backers, Roger Altman. Altman was an official in the first Clinton administration, and his name is often mentioned as a possible Clinton Treasury Secretary.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1007/The_Clintonite_who_owns_National_Enquirer.html

AND I guess Hillary asked him to run all the shit they did about her, Bill and Chelsea too!!! NOT!
SO NOW JOHN GETS TO JOIN THE CLUB?! YEEEHHHAAAAHHHH!!!!:bounce:

What happened to DU?

If you don't agree with the conclusions people draw from them, so be it...

BY THE WAY... I don't really believe Hillary had anything to do with it. I just think the irony is funny that people think she did.

Hope it worked! :hi:

nothing like being a target for the sleazy press.

He is a public figure and he would have to show malice by the magazine. He can't do that if the magazine got the information from the woman. He would be deposed about his personal life and he probably doesn't want that. As a lawyer I can say when he says the words "The story is false." that is lawyer speak. If 1% of a story is false a lawyer can say "The story is false."

Running this story just before Iowa could be easily shown as intentional malice.

The question is - is it true? Is part of it true? Would it make matters worse?

Malice is shown when the magazine runs something that they know is false. If they received information from the woman or someone in a position to know, even if the information is not true, there is no malice for a public figure. That is the law, like it or not.

Clinton gets beat up by the National Enquirer editorial side. Clinton's connections to the corporate ownership means she gets to beat up other candidates from the editorial side.

That's not very logical.

Anybody that thinks Hilary Clinton benefits from having Edwards knocked out of the race before Iowa has as much knowledge of politics as George Bush* of the Middle East...

Obama and Edwards split their votes...Clinton would not want Edwards out.

that Edwards keeps the traffic jammed in Iowa through to caucus day. I don't think there's any evidence a Democratic campaign is behind this. All we've got, so far, is someone or someones leaking information from Rielle Hunter's social circle and even that is only from the National Enquirer that I've seen.

Edwards and Clinton in one story. He must be in pig heaven. The Edwards story is bullshit and so is the Clinton smear. She has nothing to gain by Edwards in trouble: His voters will largely not go to her.

a story about this was first aired. The woman involved in this also denied it. This story is very similar to some stories about Obama that have appeared in the press. If you look at the story, some elements are true. Rielle Hunter is the woman's name. Apparently she made videos for the Edwards campaign. She is pregnant. She looks to be anywhere from seven to nine months pregnant. Obviously the baby will be born right around the Iowa caucus or Super Tuesday. If you count back, you will note that means the baby would have to have been conceived in the spring -- right around the time when Elizabeth and John Edwards were hunkered down trying to deal with Elizabeth's health issues. John Edwards is a very smart man. He really wants to be president. There is no way that baby has anything to do with him. The only connection is that the pregnant woman worked or works for his campaign in some capacity.

This is similar to the madrassa rumors about Obama. Yes, there is some truth to it, but the innuendo of it is malicious and cheap.

Interestingly, the one major candidate about whom these kinds of personal rumors have not been circulated is Hillary. Apparently some or all of the owners of the National Enquirer have donated to Hillary's campaign. True, the National Enquirer has printed nasty, unfounded rumors about Hillary in the past. But, they don't seem to be doing it this time around. Beyond that, there is no reason to blame Hillary for the story. Think what you will.

This story and is old news. Edwards has denied this story. Rielle Hunter denied this story. It is expensive and takes time to bring a lawsuit to stop a story like this. Since it is only two weeks before the Iowa caucuses and the story is so weak, Edwards may decide that the distraction posed by dealing with this story at this time is not worthwhile.

Iowa caucus goers know John Edwards personally. They will probably not be influenced one way or the other by this story. So, Edwards may not respond at all since We shall see. Looks like the baby could be born any day if it hasn't already been born. At that point, this story is likely to be forgotten since it will be possible to determine the identity of the father of the baby. And the authors of this story know full well that the father will not be named Edwards.

the headline really doesn't say that the "Love Child" is Edwards'.

And if Rielle Hunter is not married, then the baby IS a "Love Child."

It's an innuendo that is totally misleading, but many people may fall for it. Especially if they want to.

I think Edwards is much too smart to have done anything like this. I don't think any of the candidates (in both parties) would be dumb enough to fool around with the media stalking them 24/7.

An Iowa win for Edwards would effectively knock Obama out of the race.