There’s a fair amount of defense being put up for Edwards this morning, most of it knee-jerkish. One of the points of defense is that supposedly the National Enquirer got the ‘love child aspect wrong.
Me at OTB just now: [1]
Yes, well, we are not exactly flush with evidence on that point, are we? All we have is the word of an admitted liar, that the kid isn’t his. on the other hand, we do have the age of the child. now, what we can either accept the idea that the kid is his, or we are forced to conclude that the woman was carrying on affairs of her own with someone else, while she was involved with Edwards.
Neither possibility makes either one of them look very good.
But here again I say that this is the smaller of the two issues. The larger issue is the press as a reaction to all of this. If we make the assumption that the press has been covering for John Edwards, as opposed to covering John Edwards, and then logically we are forced to ask the question what else has the press been selectively telling us, about whom, and to what purpose?
Perhaps more correctly, the issue is what has the press been selectively not telling us. My feeling at this point is that this selective reporting goes far beyond one more example of infidelity. The reactions to it, from Democrat party heavies, some of which we’ve already seen, does much to put a face on things.