John Edwards has finally admittted to having an extra-marital affair with Rielle Hunter. Comments: one the National Enquirer  was right and; two, the MSM was in denial. Memorandum  has a flock of links.
Addendum I: (Bit) John Hawkins  probably has the headline that comes closer to the truth than anything else:The Silky Pony Admits To Lesbian Affair With Rielle Hunter: Mainstream Media & Daily Kos Hardest Hit
In the end here there is really no way around the point that the press fell all over itself trying to defend John Edwards by their own internal denial that the story even existed. Taking it a step farther, it’s something of a political axiom that if you get bad news to deliver, put it out on Friday afternoon late, so that the six o’clock news shows don’t get a hold of it. Say, Hume, for example. clearly, they followed that axiom in this case. Obviously, Edwards still considers himself a player on some level of a Democrat administration. He was also supposed to be speaking as I gather it at the Democratic national convention in Denver. Because of his union ties, and because all of Barack Obama’s utter LACK of them, Edwards was my odds-on bet for the VP slot. Clearly, that’s not going to happen now.
David Bonior, Edwards’ campaign manager for his 2008 presidential bid, said Friday he was disappointed and angry after hearing about Edwards’ confession. “Thousands of friends of the senators and his supporters have put their faith and confidence in him and he’s let them down,” said Bonior, a former congressman from Michigan. “They’ve been betrayed by his action.”
Which action would that be precisely, David? That he was cheating, or are you annoyed that he actually confessed? It would appear that the worst thing that one could possibly do in the Democrat party these days is to cop something that they’ve done.
Asked whether the affair would damage Edwards’ future aspirations in public service, Bonior replied: “You can’t lie in politics and expect to have people’s confidence.”
Yes, well, let’s talk about that for just a moment. Does anybody watching this story not understand the chances are very high that Bonior has know for longer than the story has been out there, what was what? the man was his campaign chairman. David Bonior knew John Edwards as well as anybody and worked as closely with him as anybody did. The possibility that Bonior didn’t know what was going on, strikes me as small enough to not mention at all. On that basis his “I’m shocked… just SHOCKED” routine, doesn’t come off and the more convincingly than did Claude Raines Louie Renult character in Casablanca.
And then, finally, we come to the press. The mainstream media, or so they call themselves. We have absolutely no indication whatsoever that the mainstream media ever tried to cover this story as it should’ve been covered. As a matter of fact what we do have, is an example of the mainstream media in the personage of the editor at the LA Times directly saying to his people that the story should not be touched.
The National Enquirer chased the story. The mainstream media did not. Given their history it’s fairly clear to me why then is; that capital D. after his name. Let me put it to you this way; when a flea farm like the National Enquirer takes on the lead on investigative journalism it’s a safe bet to say that the MSM is covering for a Democrat.
And yes, YAJ I see you on this. That’s the real story… the MSM covering this stuff up; you’re quite right. that John Edwards was screwing around on his cancer ridden wife probably isn’t all that much of a story. Unless you consider that when Newt Gingrich did it, there was a generous amount of press coverage.
And thereby, I think, hangs a comparison; the mainstream media couldn’t yet its backside out on the street trying to gather information about that affair fast enough to satisfy themselves. The question clearly is why was the story covered up this time… And particularly by comparison. Clearly we’re talking about a liberal bias within the mainstream media, that’s nothing new. Thing is, for all intents and purposes, John Edwards was well out of the race. Only a few such as myself were saying that Edwards was going to be a player in much of anything in this election, after he dropped out. So why the smokescreen, then? Why the flat refusal to cover the story? Can it be that word had filtered down from on high that Mr. Edwards was going to be the VP pick? If so, why wasn’t that reported?
As you see, there’s an awful lot of questions swirling around all of this, none of which are going to be answered effectively, between now and November. Most of those questions swirl around what appears increasingly to be an incestral relationship between the press and the Democrats.
Addendum II: (David L)
Lying Lizzy, b.ka. Mrs. Elizabeth Edwards posted a piece of drizzle to the Kos. MacRanger responds:
I’m sorry Elizabeth, but no we won’t, and you can stick that “voyeurism” where the you know what don’t shine. This isn’t about your “privacy” and your “pain”. Amazingly enough you showed none of the same sympathy over the last couple of years while slandering others.
That you “knew” about this affair but continue to lie along with your lying husband even in the midst of accusations to the contrary and while people of your party seriously considered picking him for VP, makes you just as much a liar as he
Lying Lizzy took a page of Mrs. Clinton’s play book and lied about her worthless cad of a husband. I wonder why the media is eager to pronounce the Edwards’ lying as career killing but continue to ignore the Clintons’ lying.