the videos seem to predate the announcement declaring his candidacy. therefore they were probably paid for with funds from his One America PAC - not his Presidential campaign. he nor his campaign probably can't promote content paid for with PAC funds in the service of winning an election. that's a financial and legal matter that probably is the culprit.

After watching the first video, it seems likely that there's a certain flirtiness going on between the interviewer and Edwards--mostly on the part of the interviewer. It's the sort of innocent thing that happens between men and women all the time and there's no reason to think there's anything else going on. But the Edwards camp might think it comes off a bit unseemly for varying reasons.

Not sure what the big deal is, (or if the clips are coming or going) but if you want to look for yourself, the video is also posted at:

www.webcastr.com.

Ditto, ditto, and ditto. Can we guest editors?
Between the Hillary bashing circus and the Edwards haircut crap, is anyone out there in journalismland?

It could be that John Edwards is in the middle of the campaign about serious matters, he didn't want to give the Bushies et als a way to distract from the issues and focus in on the value of a hair cut.

Wow, it's possible that they put the videos out there so you'd drop your investigative reporting and maybe spend time reporting on real issues.

Dude! Get a life will you.

WTF?

Can't you find some real news to "report" on?

I believe that this big "Mystery" has garnered the proper responses- "huh?" and "what's the big deal?".
I not sure what the purpose of this big "expose'"
was but it has been appropriately shot down.
Ridiculous waste of what little time and effort it may have required.
Moving on....

What are you trying to do? See how few comments a so-called story can get. This one should win hands down.

It's Jon, not John, Stewart. I think it's a safe bet that the rest of this story is as well fact-checked and researched.

This may be one of the worst examples of reporting and writing that I've seen on this site...it's just about bad enough to qualify as a Michelle Malkin article...just one example...the first article says, "...the production company behind the films is citing confidentiality agreements in refusing to talk." The second article says, "Both the Edwards camp and the video producers -- Mimi Hockman and Rielle Hunter -- had refused to divulge any of the material to the Huffington Post, citing legal restrictions. Several campaign finance lawyers, however, challenged the validity of their positions." Let's just take a moment to understand the sentence...Stein says "BOTH the Edwards camp and the producers" refused to talk "citing legal restrictions". Stein then cites unnamed (why unnamed?...did they demand anonymity?...or is it just laziness on Stein's part) campaign finance lawyers who he claims "challenge the validity of THEIR positions". So the implication is that these campaign lawyers challenged the producers' position, as well as the campaign's position. But when we go back to article one, we see that the producers' refusal to talk was based on "confidentiality agreements"...not on campaign finance issues. Does Stein have a reason to create this confusion...probably, since he needs to find a controversy somewhere...or is it laziness and carelessness...again??? In either event, he doesn't say a single thing about why it might be unusual for a production company to be bound by confidentiality provisions in their contracts...or why it's somehow suspicious that they would refuse to breach their contract!!! It's truly a pathetic waste of time and energy...it sounds like the new conservative reasoning that the less evidence they find to support their theories, the more convinced they are that their theories are correct because it proves that their targets have gone to great lengths to hide the evidence! I can't believe I've spent so much time on this but it truly got under my skin.

Ah, the questions abound! Here are a few more for the record:

Who cares?
If the videos are so innocuous, why does this merit an entire post?
Why did I waste my time reading this?
And, more importantly, why am I now wasting mine and everybody's time answering it?

Ah yes, the mystery just deepens...