Say It Ain't So, John -- Why Progressives Need To Get Out In Front Of The John Edwards Affair Rumors

Update: I spoke with David Perel, the editor of The National Enquirer. When I asked if he was confident in the reporting about Edwards being at the hotel, he laughed and said "We KNOW it's true." Perel also noted that Edwards hasn't denied being there.

Before I dive in, let me get the 'objectivity' thing out of the way. As a citizen journalist whose main claim to fame is producing satirical comedy, I can be upfront about my political leanings. I'm a recovering libertarian and currently I'm a registered Democrat who is excited to be voting for Barack Obama in November. I like John Edwards and up until a few days ago, he would have been my first choice for Vice President on an Obama ticket. I'm far from Puritan -- anything two or more consenting adults want to do is fine by me. I also think it's obvious a person's sexual life doesn't keeps them from being an effective politician.

I'm judging this situation using two standards; 1) what's the truth? 2) how's it going to play out in the media?

The truth is that I believe anyone who looks into the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter affair story will see that Edwards has, at best, acted in a very suspicious manner for over a year now. When the Larry Craig story was breaking, I didn't buy his particular line of bullshit and I don't buy Edwards's either after I've spent the last couple of days Googling with my wife. (That's not as dirty as it sounds.) At first, I was skeptical of the National Enquirer story catching Edwards leaving the Beverly Hills Hilton Hotel at 2:45am because there were no pictures and the tabloids aren't reliable. Now it turns out that Edwards was at the hotel, so was Ms. Hunter, and that he when he saw reporters he hid in the bathroom until security guards came and got him.

I got more suspicious after reading a story on The Huffington Post from last September by Sam Stein detailing the weird story of some short webisodes about John Edwards that mysteriously were pulled off the internet. Read it yourself here and fold it into the mix of the current allegations.

Let's go with the assumption that Edwards is innocent for a moment; he didn't have the affair so the baby isn't his. If he didn't do anything wrong then it seems like he'd have good reasons to stop the rumors. A DNA test months ago would have ended all speculation about the paternity of the baby. Isn't that a better, less suspicious move than pulling down all the videos that Rielle Hunter helped produce about him for his campaign? And if there are rumors and you're innocent, WHY go visit the subject of those rumors at a hotel and leave at 2:45 in the morning? Why hide in the bathroom when reporters catch you leaving? These actions don't make any more sense to me than Craig's 'wide stance/dropped my toilet paper' defense did.

How's it going to play out? It seems to me that this is going to be a tsunami-sized scandal for the Democratic Party and right now the coming typhoon of press coverage is close to breaking. We're at the point of calm before the big waves hit but there are signs of the impending deluge. Jay Leno is making jokes about it. Perez Hilton is on the story. The mainstream media is fairly quiet but the most ominous silence right now is from the progressive blogosphere.

The progressive blogosphere is ignoring this story at its own peril because it's going to be big. At this moment, there's a weird state of denial about the entire thing. As of 4pm Saturday, nothing at all on TalkingPointMemo.com. DailyKos did a dismissive post making fun of the Enquirer. FireDogLake? Nothing. Americablog? Nada. These are some of my favorite blogs, by the way.

The Huffington Post has at least hovered about the edges of the story as it's been unfolding. There have been a couple of half-hearted, nothing-to-see-here blogs but also news reports on the latest events. A blog by John McQuaid said that there's no "physical evidence a la Bill Clinton." Well, there's a baby. Not a stained dress left to hang in the closest for a few months but a real cooing, smiling little baby who I assume looks adorable on camera and probably has nice hair. That lil' tyke is stuffed full of DNA, too. Cute little DNA.

Despite what some people are going to say, this is news. A former Senator and Vice Presidential candidate who was running for President less than six months ago and is now on the short list for Vice President has an long affair during the campaign and fathers a child, covers it up, and then is caught at a hotel with the mother of the child. News! Oh -- and his wife made regular appearances on the campaign trail and has been diagnosed with cancer. If it were Mitt Romney, you'd be hearing peels of laughter and the satisfying smacking sound of Merlot and Starbucks fueled high fives coming from the nearest blue state. Would it have made the progressive blogs? C'mon, of course it would...with funny pictures and as many self-satisfied comments as you can shake a Macbook Air at.

It's a juicy story that has so many elements that are easy hooks for those short segments on cable news where two people argue while the news anchor asks softball questions. Here's a quick list of all the story angles I can think of just off the top of my head.

John Edwards Matters This isn't a Mike Gravel affair. (Sorry to put that image in your head.) John Edwards been the conscience of the Democratic Party this primary season and a compelling presence speaking out on the growing gap between rich and poor. If he wasn't going to be Vice President, most Democrats wanted him somewhere in an Obama cabinet.

Video Clips Galore! Cable news loves showing video clips, usually in looping montages. Those webisodes that Hunter made that were taken down? They look flirty and suspicious in light of the alleged affair.

It's Fresh The Edwards affair happened during the primary campaign. This isn't ancient history. What if he's WON the primary? Would he really have taken the nomination and handed the race to McCain?

Primary Revisionism Will the affair change the way we look back on the primary? Why did Edwards drop out of the race so quickly? Why did Edwards not endorse anyone until his endorsement was a moot point? Endless debates will ensue.

DNA! The press loves any story with DNA. Drama! DNA test refusals. Acceptance. Test goes out. What will happen? It's like Montel Williams but it takes weeks!

Democratic Convention in Denver happening soon. Will Edwards speak? Will he appear at all? What about Elizabeth? Oh, the drama. You'll see.

"How could he do that to his sick wife?" This whole thing doesn't play well with women voters. Or women non-voters. Or men.

"Should we care about politician's sex lives?" Whatever your answer, that's a hook for the press. As soon as the story reaches a big tipping point, the mainstream press will question the story.

"Liberal media bias" - here's the big one. Republicans have had a lot of embarrassing, juicy sex scandals of their own lately and boy, do they want some payback. It doesn't look good that the Los Angeles Times banned bloggers from discussing the story. Where's the Times investigation -- seems like the story is in their backyard. And that silence you hear from the mainstream press right now? The GOP is going to "play the refs" and jump all over the media for not reporting or investigating this story. The media will eventually break down and do what they do - saturate us with the story they missed just to prove how unbiased they really are.

Lauren and I are organizing the information we've found just by doing some internet research ourselves and for what it's worth, we'll posting it on my blog at Stranahan.com. If you're part of the progressive blogosphere, don't put your head in the sand and hope this goes away because I don't think it will. Don't leave the reporting to Fox and the tabloids. Investigate it yourself. Talk about it, write about it. Disagree or agree but don't just dismiss it because there's too much to just dismiss. If Edwards made a series of personal errors here, at least it should be his friends and allies who help him transition into the next phase of his life. Please make me wrong on this...there's too much at stake.

Update: Seems like I've touched a third rail here. I cross-posted this piece at Daily Kos and it got over 400 comments. Unfortunately, a large number of the comments were nothing but insults. One person suggested seriously that all the videos I've made lampooning Republicans (including my Mike Huckabee video that Kos himself called the 'best political parody of 2007) were just a ruse so I could weasel my way into the progressive blogosphere, apparently in anticipation of John Edwards being caught at hotel.

Follow Lee Stranahan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Stranahan

Comments

[susanra]

If you desire to ridicule, censor, and get rid of every statesman or public servant who had a relationship outside of marriage, you would need to eradicate the tenures of some of america's greatest leaders:

John F. Kennedy who was considered inspirational

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, considered one of the greatest presidents

Bill Clinton

and some republican leaders, although not necessarily among the greatest leaders:

Newt Gindrich

George Bush Sr

to name just a few

It is senseless to base a politician's contributions on his chastity with other women.

[oldmanjack]

Those tough bastard inquisitors at KOS were right on almost everything.
NON story-NON issue-NON journalism-License to the NE allegations. The play of a small group (10-12) of gossip-smut blogs - cross-posting commentaries on a single source - (NE) with no new or serious information. Just smug and nasty commentary.
The only new thing I learned is that Ms Druck and Mr Bruck were friends. How incredible is that?
I must add that a great many people have shown a lot of love...Let it be.
P.S the 01:35 07/30 and 01:36 07/30 analysis by Ivanosky is brilliant.

[Lee Stranahan - Huffpost Blogger]

The Enquirer piece about the hotel sighting is not reporting rumors or things that someone else said. It's not hearsay. It's not gossip. It's not hiding behind a source. It's reporters saying that they saw John Edwards with their own eyes in the hotel.

The Fox News story confirming this seems like solid reporting to me. It states facts and names names. Not all the information in the article supports the case that Edwards was there. Nothing denies it, however.

Yes, the guard is anonymous, most likely because times are tough and they don't want to lose their crappy job as a hotel security guard. Anonymous sources are used and accepted in journalism. My friend Cliff Schecter reported John McCain calling his wife the c-word, based on three anonymous sources in his book The Real McCain - few liberals complained.

I've seen people make statements like "I don't believe Edwards was there because the security guard had to be shown a picture!" and then say "I don't believe anything Fox says!" without realizing the contradiction. You can't have it both ways. That information about the security guard came from Fox News. If Fox isn't a source you can trust at all, then you can't just trust the parts that bolster your case.

Once one 'reputable' source comes out with a story that confirms some of the allegations, the mainstream press will take that as a cue to jump right in.

Let's hope Edwards does the right thing before that happens.

[oldmanjack]

My apologies, your forgiveness Sir. It seems I am now a 'glorious fool', for - IT - has started and your journalistic instinct of it's imminence and inevitability was correct. I am sad beyond reason in the face of so much baseness. Mindless MSM piranhas homing in on the smell of blood, innocent or not.

Chicken or egg, the fight for sanity and decency has begun and we must improvise!

"...Stand up and fight, for you know we are right
We must strike at the lies, that have spread like disease through our minds..."
-Genesis, The Knife

[observing]

For all the wondering this and wondering that, it is was so simple to just watch how John treated Elizabeth "Edwards" during press conferences. He'd point a thumb in "her" direction. Refer to her as "she" or "her" and displayed not one scintilla of warmth in Lizzy's direction. I could see that the moment I saw the two of them together years ago on TV. Her chin and jaw are the usual tense pose of a wife wronged. Wow, was that really hard to see for some? I feel like I've known about this for years.

[devdil]

I felt that too. When Elizabeth revealed that her cancer had come back, he didnt even hold her hand...I also found it odd that he seemed so ambitious despite his wife's sickness.

Oh..btw, Edwards has been paying hush money to reille ($15000 per month) and the guy who covered for him. So if you have contributed to his campaign, you know its being well spent. The baby's name and other sweet details are also presented in the following link.

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/07/edwards-mistress-getting-15000-a-month-to-keep-quiet.php

[pixy242a]

I did not like the description in the above link that referred to 'b*tard child" . I didn't think we cast aspersions any more on children of these unfortunate affairs, as it is no fault of the baby.

[dora rice]

I thought he was gay. I am relieved he isn't and we all sit down once in a while on the bench of lust and happyness. Having said that, it would have been nice for him to be the knight in shining armore protecting ailing Brunhilde. But since we live in 2008 and not in the renosance area, he just forgot himself one night. Now he has a child and guess what he can afford it. It is not easy to see your partner detoriating and beeing eaten up with cancer and knowing the end is near sooner or later. So give pretty boy some slack we don't need him for president anyhow. There was always a phony hue around him anyhow. The other two that are running aren't any better.

[Bushwhacked]

John Edwars always had a fake, ready-at-the cuff smile. I knew he was a weasel.

[Fan035]

If this story is true, I feel terrible for Mrs. Edwards. She is afterall suffering from terminal cancer. Also I'm rather shocked because Edwards appeared so squeaky clean while running for the presidential nomination. Edwards needs to come forward and tell the truth. Otherwise the press will tell the story for him.

[pixy242a]

Here's an idea of how the progressives can counter when the press pounces on this story :

Remind them that in 25 years if Edwards plays his cards right with the media, all will be forgotten -- he can be the second coming of the Maverick, call his then wife an unmentionable word in public and make every gaffe possible and run for president,

[Tator]

What I find laughable about Liberals and their married leaders infidelities is their pat response....I don't care about their sex life....and they close their minds to any additional information. They are always squalling about Bush lying yet when one of their is caught lying...it doesn't matter ...then comes the dumbest statement...I don't care if it is about their personal life..meaning it is OK if they lie to you about their personal life and you drop it there.

Now I take the next logical step...If they will lie to you about their personal life what stops them from lying about policy issues? Nothing. They have already crossed the "it is OK to lie bridge, and my followers are OK with it." I have had personal friends that I found out cheated on their wives and I told them, sorry I don't wish to associate with you anymore....if you will lie to your most trusted soul mate, you will lie to me, so see ya.

So where are Edwards followers on this if it is true.....It is OK for him to lie to his sick soul mate wife , but he will be honest with me on all other issues.....naivety pure and simple.

[Ndw]

I'd like to point out that this is not exclusive to "Liberals." People on both sides do this, equally, & with equal venom. It's 'followers,' and those come in both wings of both parties - one no more than the other. They both make excuses for behavior they would condemn should it show up in someone 'on the other side.' (unless it happens to be something near & dear to them personally, ie, the cheating husband who sees it as 'a personal matter.)

If we weren't so intent on looking at these people through our own veils, we might see them for what they actually are. But don't try to pretend this is a 'them Libruls' thing - that's just as blatant a lie as any.

[Argente]

Liberals? Aren't the worst of the lot the sanctimonious Christian extremists who pass judgment instantaneously on others for any range of "sins" - hypocrisy at its finest. Seems to me that cutting a friend loose based on a perceived character flaw isn't being much of a friend. And if you severed relations with every person who's ever lied to you, you'd be living without human contact. I've never understood what constitutes soul-mate status, but with a 50+% divorce rate and with probably half of the remaining marriages being less than blissful, soul mates occur in a relatively small percentage of the cohabitant population.

[Marcee]

Your preposterous logic is so off the wall it cannot go unchallenged. Yes, we liberals are "always squalling about Bush (and company) lying." How can you even equate the Bush administration's lies to an allegation of presumed love affair reported in the National Enquirer? As dozens of books and article corroborate, Bush has repeatedly lied or shaded the truth. The result of this untruthfulness is that we now have 4,124 brave young men and women dead not to mention the injured and maimed who have fought a war started by an administration that was hell bent on initiating warfare against Hussein long before they designed their central rationale for war. How many died because of this so-called Edwards' affair reported in the National Enquirer? If the John Edwards story is true, I am sorry for Mrs. Edwards and rgwue family for the public embarrassment they must feel. Edwards is hardly the first man to be caught in an affaire d'amour and won't be the last. Both sides of the aisles have their list of stupid mistakes of the heart. Yes, they are regrettably events but human. Unlike you, there are many of us liberals who hate the sin and forgive the sinner. For me, these human failings are understandable and pale in comparison to Bush's other calculated, policy deceits that have brought forth death, destruction and deficit.

[pixy242a]

To follow your logic -- Bush lied about Iraq, therefore he must be lying to Laura too.

Complexity and irony seem lost on extreme Right .

Complexity, because history is full of people who, who led imperfect private lives, but performed public lives above reproach. And outright scoundrels have had contented and happy home lives. And there are many shades of grey in beween.

Irony of those who proclaim their 'morality' and then are exposed in those same activities which they condemn and try to legislate against. No need to name names.

Remember W's favorite philospher who had little tolerance the hypocrisy of Pharisee.

[WomanInOrangeSweater]

Nicely said. But I don't believe that missing complexity and irony is trait exclusive to the extreme right. The extreme left is equally bereft, i'd say.

[Margij]

Hmmmmm, I guess McCain is honest with you on the other issues.

[TrueThis]

I'm sorry but Stranhan's website is not informative at all--

[SILVANUS]

Gemini men.... narcissists.

[Ndw]

Well, if you follow the links to her taken down/propped up website, she gives several astrologists who can help with all your Star Reading Needs. That may help weed out the Geminis with darker influences & help you find the Special One who has some mitigating Tauren stability...

[pixy242a]

IF true, It' s regrettable that a person of this stature is in this mess and one feels for his family. It will cause a media storm and may affect him politically.

Beyond that it has no effect on anyone really. If the Right wants to make a big deal about it, they are being hypocritcal as usual.

[ThisIsThis]

So why did the liberal MSM make a big deal out of the Larry Craig incident? When compared with Edwards, Craig is an unknown relatively speaking. Who is being hypocritical now?

[pixy242a]

Because of his part in anti-gay legislation, it was Craig who was the hypocrite.

[AshevilleVoice]

"I don't agree the Enquirer makes up direct observations out of thin air - that's called 'lying'. What they do often is quote sources. That's a shield..."

Having unnamed sources doesn't mean that they aren't guilty of publishing lies.

Libel suits that have been won against the National Enquirer include: Kate Hudson, Shirley Jones, Carol Burnett.

Apologies and/or damages paid to: Cameron Diaz, the wife of Gary Condit, the Eliabeth Smart family.

In 2002, 2 Salt Lake City reporters who sold false info to the Enquirer said, in their defense, "When I dealt with the Enquirer, I never dreamed that I was accepting money for 'information."

From
http://www.lotsofessays.com/viewpaper/1692481.html

"The National Enquirer has a remarkable track record for avoiding libel suits using a combination of First Amendment freedoms, aggressive lawyering, and patience... the flamboyant newspaper has built its reputation on hyperbole rather than straight, scholarly fact. Generoso Pope, Jr., a former C.I.A. operative, is its founding owner. He made it famous and successful by stressing the lurid and bizarre details of crime stories and by the use of lots of celebrity gossip. "

I have no problem with John Edwards being held accountable for his behavior. I DO have a problem with holding him accountable for allegations made solely by Fox News and the National Enquirer. It strikes me as irresponsible to spread harmful rumors before some sort of plausible proof is available.

[devdil]

Let's, for a moment, forget the Edwards' hotel incident (very suspicious that he hasnt made any "I did not have sex ...woman" type statements. Could it be because there is a criminal investigation on and his lawyers have basically asked him to keep his mouth shut?...hmmm). Please just take a look at the videos that this woman made of Edwards.
There is something very sleazy there...he appears drunk in one scene, throws in references of Ken doll, there is certainly flirting going on, and the camera focuses on his butt a little too long, and the music is cheesy. This video looked more like an MTV Real-World promo than a presidential campiagn and I cant believe that this woman was (a) paid 100k for this and (b) they actually put it up on the offcial campaign website. If Edwards wanted to reveal his loose, personal side, you might have thought there would be a little more of him playing with his kids or cooking in the kitchen. The entire video is smarmy...just like him--and shows him to be immature, fake and frankly, vain...just the type who would be reckless enough to drown his campaign and party for his own selfish ego. That is why some allegations stick to some people more than others. I would never have believed this of Obama. Our party has dodged a huge bullet, and we need to recognize this rather than brush it off. Good work, Lee.

[AshevilleVoice]

I watched the same vid and I didn't see anything remotely sleazy. I didn't think he looked drunk, either. I saw candid moments, and thought that Edwards' campaign wanted to reveal his less polished side, which is straight up what Edwards says on camera.

Analyzing every nuance of it seems overreaching for evidence.

How does the quality of the video indicate that Hunter and Edwards had an affair?

And they were flirting....why? Because they were laughing and smiling???? Man, I must be dense about psychology or something. I just don't see so much relevance, and don't understand how it's all so meaningful.

[Truthmeter]

Scandals are created by both parties...because humans have them..not political parties..look at most recently Spitzer. Lousy human beings make up both parties.

[missionimpossible]

Edwards: " I did not have sex with that woman".

[Ivanosky]

The second category of comment is more of a problem for you. People are not convinced by these allegations. In fact, most people are not even suspicious. That is not only because they don't jibe with the history or the intelligence of the accused, but also because they come from a completely unreliable source. It doesn't matter if the Enquirer occasionally breaks a story or two. They more often than not make things up out of thin air. A quick prerusal at your local supermarket will confirm this. They aren't always sued for their fabrications because people don't want to give the stories any more attention. But they are sued often, and they lose. The current evidence on the table is a story in the Enquirer which is itself poorly sourced, and a truly pathetic follow-up from Fox news featuring an eyewitness account with a security guard that would get laughed out of any courtroom. Your cryptic suggestion that more is to be found on Google does not help your cause, unless you reveal what you've found, and your refusal to do so casts some serious doubt.

[AzRealProgressive]

So, what if it is true ? And if it is, what does it mean ?

[Ndw]

It means he's a tart, which doesn't seem to be unusual for lawyers or politicians, but far more dark than this, it means that he's used his very popular and tragedy-riddled wife as a prop, & that pretty much makes him potting soil.

[Lee Stranahan - Huffpost Blogger]

I'm working on a follow up. I honestly had no possible way of knowing that this would generate the interest it has on HuffPo and between my full time day, freelance projects, and family - I ran out of time.

It's late and I have to be at work in about 5 hours so short answer to part 2 - LA Times and Washington Post are saying they are investigating.

I don't agree the Enquirer makes up direct observations out of thin air - that's called 'lying'. What they do often is quote sources. That's a shield...

Here's a cut and paste about some source material..

if you want to get up to speed on the all accusations and see the supporting materials, the best place I've seen everything laid out so far is on the gossipy blog Deceiver.com. I wish it were Talking Points Memo or Raw Story but nope; Deceiver is all over it. The writing is snarky but the links and information are all there

[jrterrier]

here's a link to some of the webcam videos made/produced by the supposed love interest: http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=136553

edwards does seem very flirtatious at times and her laugh supposedly heard in the background seems to find edwards comments a bit too funny.

oh, well. it's somewhat sad for all involved including elizabeth edwards, their children, the 'other woman' and her love-child.

i must say that if she is lying about the child's father not being edwards, it does seem a bit strange that the claim is that he was fathered by another married man, with three children of his own. the kicker is that he happens to be a long-time edwards supporter/friend.

[AshevilleVoice]

All that I found on deceiver.com was a link to Reille's website, which had absolutely nothing remotely incriminating. Furthermore, the deceiver blogger admits he's only read the headers on the website, and hasn't "started exploring it yet".

There is also a link to the Enquirer article, which is...guess what?... imploring you to buy the Enquirer :

"For more details – pick up THE ENQUIRER - on sale now!"

[jwarrener]

Lee---I hope that you also investigate why the Enquirer says it has photographs to prove their claims but refuses to publish them online or in their newspaper. Even one picture published would be enough to cinch the deal and then they could always publish the rest OR are we going to get a picture of a men's room door as the proof?

A suspicious person might wonder why they need to hold back on the photos until after Obama picks his VP choice.

ALSO Has anyone checked to see if an actual criminal report was filed with the police as said or is everyone taking the NE's word?

[miasmo]

Okay, I just read the Inquirer story. My question is this: If they caught Edwards at this hotel, why are there no pictures? The Inquirer can't afford a video camera? It doesn't make any sense. The National Inquirer is synonymous with crazy made up bullsh-t. Why is anyone taking this seriously?

[Ndw]

Ok, is her reposted website real? If so... wow...

It has to be read (the 'shift happens' part in particular) to be believed. I have to say, I consider myself relatively flaky, I'm willing to believe or at least investigate a lot...

but...

wow...