August 07, 2008

8/7: A Family For Each America?

With campaign commentary over Barack Obama and John McCain in a momentary lull, bloggers have seized upon a controversy involving former Dem candidate John Edwards. Beginning last October, the National Enquirer has reported on rumors that Edwards was involved in an extra-marital affair with Rielle Hunter, a filmmaker who worked on his pres. campaign. However, since the article was based entirely on anonymous sourcing, and because the Enquirer isn't exactly known for credible journalism, the mainstream media largely ignored the rumors.

But last month, the Enquirer dropped a bomb shell: Edwards and Hunter had rendezvoused at an L.A. hotel so that Edwards could visit an alleged "love child" he had with Hunter. Fox News gave some credibility to the story when it confirmed with a security guard that Edwards had been at the hotel that night. Yesterday, the Enquirer finally published photos of Edwards with his alleged baby. And today, McClatchy reported on growing pressure within the Dem Party for Edwards to address the rumors directly. Ex-DNC chair Don Fowler:

"If there is not an explanation that's satisfactory, acceptable and meets high moral standards, the answer is no, he would not be a prime candidate to make a major address to the convention."

MEDIA: Dams Have Broken On The Mainstream

Many liberal bloggers continue to dismiss the "love child" rumors as tabloid nonsense. Deceiver: "Boy, you skip a day on the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter non-story and you miss a lot of non-news." Atrios seemed to mock the story by posting an "actual photo" of Edwards' and Hunter's baby: Bat Boy, the famous fictional character of the Enquirer.

Some liberals, however, seemed to start believing that the rumors must be true. Gun-Toting Liberal: "Who WAS this man of character and decency we all loved and trusted after all, we are asking ourselves. Sadly, we just THOUGHT we knew the guy — we didn't. Live and learn — it's never good to put our heros up on a pedestal lest we place our own selves in a vulnerable position."

Many bloggers questioned the veracity of the Enquirer photos:

• Hot Air's AllahPundit: "I wasn't planning to blog the story otherwise, but honestly, the more I look at that blur the more it looks like a Photoshop filter. ... I've used the paint and blur P-shop filters myself on occasion when working on a satirical image that I couldn't get to look quite right; the filters help soften and obscure the hard lines that indicate where the 'stitching' is. Same here, maybe? Not good enough? All right, let's try another angle. The encounter in the hotel allegedly took place on July 21. Here's an AP photo of Edwards taken earlier that same day in Los Angeles. Compare the sideburns and the distance between his hair and his right temple. Hmmm. Still not good enough? Well, the original Enquirer story claims he was wearing a "blue dress shirt" when he entered the building. There's no collar on the shirt in the new Enquirer photo (in fact, in the smaller photo — which clearly is Edwards — it looks a bit like a hospital gown), although I guess he could have changed for whatever inexplicable reason when he got to the room."
• Wake Up America's Susan Duclos: "I now have added another question to my list: How did they get a picture of him and the baby IN the room?"
• Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum: "I can't really tell if [the photos are] genuine based on the small clip online, and I'm surprised the Enquirer hasn't posted more than a couple of images, but they're there."

But by far the most commentary focused on the mainstream media's continued refusal to report on the rumors. Many conservative bloggers perceived that reluctance to be part of a conspiracy by the "liberal media":

• Gateway Pundit: "Gee... Do you think the Leftist American media could start reporting on this major political scandal, yet? It is an absolute disgrace that the mainstream media remains silent! The National Enquirer continues to do the hard journalism the mainstream media refuses to do."
• Death By 1000 Papercuts's Mondoreb: "The real scandal wasn't that Edwards fathered a baby while married to a cancer-stricken wife. ... It was the monolithic refusal of the American mainstream press to even investigate the facts of the story, which were, with the application of a little legwork, easy enough for them to investigate. After Edwards was caught by the Enquirer's reporters at the Beverly Hilton at 2:40 in the morning July 22, the reason for not reporting was 'there’s no confirmation'. When FoxNews confirmed the run-in by interviewing one of the hotel security guards involved, the reason shifted to, 'We want to see pictures'. ... But outside of a few dailies and a few mentions at FoxNews, there was none. Customers of CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, the New York Times, Time, Newsweek and the LA Times –- where LAT's Blogs Editor, Tony Pearce, infamously and specifically ordered his reporters not to blog on the topic –- are still in the dark."
• A Blog For All's lawhawk: "Will the Los Angeles Times now deem the story newsworthy? Or, will they, like other big media outlets, continue to embargo the story because they've decided that it isn't worth our time to read about Edwards conduct and marital infidelities? My thoughts and prayers go out to Elizabeth Edwards and her children. ... May she take John for every last penny. However, bloggers are reporting on this, and it further underscores the fact that the public can and will continue to rely more on alternative news sources because they have had it with the media elites who determine what stories should fly and which ones get buried."

Slate's Mickey Kaus has been at the forefront of the Edwards rumors since the Enquirer story first broke. Yesterday, he compiled a list of reasons why the mainstream media have not reported on the story. Kaus: "Why write about the Edwards scandal? Here's a short clip-'n'-save response to those (including many friends) who argue the Edwards scandal shouldn't be pursued--or at least pursued too vigorously-- even if it is true:"

• 1. No "private citizen": Edwards was certainly a contender for VP, or a big cabinet post like Attorney General, or even the Supreme Court, before the scandal first erupted in the "undernews" in late 2007. Some reporters say he was still on Obama's VP list until quite recently. If he's now finished as far as those big jobs are concerned, it's in large part because of this scandal, which Obama might never have learned about if everyone had followed the MSM's lead. Even now, Edwards may not be out of the running for an array of lesser public posts--including cabinet-grade positions--that provide non-trivial power and a platform for future advancement. Important unions back him. ... It's silly to say "he's just a private citizen".... What makes the scandal awful and unpleasant ... is that Edwards has a very ill wife. ...
• 2. Hypocrisy: ... Why, after all, was Edwards ever considered presidential material. Is he a great executive? No. A brilliant policy expert? No. An accomplished diplomat? No. He's an ex-Senator with one undistinguished term in office who rose in life on the basis of his singular ability to use tearjerking stories to move juries and win large verdicts. ... Edwards' most effective anecdote this year, however, was probably the story of his popular wife Elizabeths' struggle against cancer. He made it the emotional center of a TV ad: ... During a joint 60 Minutes interview focusing on his wife's illness, Edwards explicitly linked his behavior in that struggle and his fitness for public office: ...
• 3. Relevance: If a politician is a great executive, thinker or diplomat who cheats on his brave, ill wife, you figure, "OK, We're not hiring him because of his sterling private behavior." If a politician whose chief appeal is his self-advertised loyalty to his brave, ill wife cheats on his brave ill wife, what's he good for again? And if Edwards' crucial talent as a public official is his ability to move people with tearjerky anecdotes, and those anecdotes ... turn out to be BS or half BS, that's more than random hypocrisy, It goes to the core of what he does and what he claims to offer. ...
• 4. Irresponsibility: How irresponsible was it to seek the party's nomination knowing that this scandal was lurking around, ready to explode? What if he'd won? Are we sure it wouldn't have been discovered by the McCain campaign before November? ...

More Kaus: "The only legitimate reason not to cover this scandal, it seems to me, is simple sympathy for Elizabeth Edwards--and I've gotten enough emails from anguished and angry members of the MSM to conclude, with Estrich, that it's the prime reason for the MSM blackout. ... Reporters don't have to print everything. You could conclude that the need to protect Mrs. Edwards her children is so great, the karma of Enquiring so bad, that all of the obvious, public-interesty reasons for covering the story should be thrown out the window. And if John Edwards were already so damaged that in practice he'd never get a significant public office even if he wants one, I might agree.... But that's a point that clearly hasn't been reached yet.... A man arrogant and ambitious enough to think he can run for president posing as a loyal husband while keeping his second family secret ... will be arrogant and ambitious enough to keep hiding under the shield of his wife's illness until he can attempt a comeback -- if given the chance."

Most bloggers, conservative and liberal, agree that the "love child" genie is out of the bottle, and that the mainstream media now have no other choice but to pursue the story. RedState's Streiff titled a post, "The Dike Gives Way." Moderate Voice's Shaun Mullen wrote, "it's on the verge of going big time. Very big time." Other reactions:

• Liberal Values's Ron Chusid: "The [McClatchy] article proceeds to describe how Edwards, rather than explaining the situation, has been avoiding reporters. It is appearing that such stonewalling will not work much longer as reputable news sources such as McClatchy are picking up the story despite showing initial reluctance."
• Gawker's Ryan Tate: "[McClatchy's] Raleigh News & Observer, which unlike other newspapers has never declared itself too good for the John Edwards love-child scandal, is first with the angle that will probably at long last propel the sordid tale into the Times and Washington Post and basically everywhere: Edwards' presumed speaking slot at the convention, which "ordinarily would be locked in," may be taken away unless he eliminates questions about his alleged affair and love-child. The News & Observer seems to have assembled the piece before the blurry new pictures of Edwards-and-daughter surfaced today, so it probably shouldn't have much trouble scaring up another statement like this, the only supporting quote in the article:"

  "He absolutely does have to (resolve it). If it's not true, he has to issue a stronger denial," said Gary Pearce, the Democratic strategist who ran Edwards' 1998 Senate race. "It's a very damaging thing. ... The big media has tried to be responsible and handle this with kid gloves, but it's clearly getting ready to bust out. If it's not true, he's got to stand up and say, 'This is not true. That is not my child and I'm going to take legal action against the people who are spreading these lies.' It's not enough to say, 'That's tabloid trash."

  "Oh yes, the buttoned-down media will soon be lapping this story up with a spoon. See, previously the Edwards scandal was just an irrelevant trifle about how the maybe next U.S. attorney general or even vice president had a baby with another woman while his wife died of cancer and possibly paid the mistress hush money and lied to everyone about it. But now it's about how a speaker at a meaningless convention might distract the media from covering the media event in the way media handlers prefer. In other words, a REAL story."
• Flopping Aces's Curt: "No way, no how, can the MSM ignore this story if he is ousted from his speaker role at the convention. They can spin it anyone they want, but the simple fact that the story is so controversial that it prevents him from speaking should wake the MSM up from their slumber."
• Don Surber: "Dems do what MSM won't. They are asking about the love child of Democrat John Edwards. ... When Edwards is not in Denver later this month, I wonder how ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NBC, and PBS will explain his absence."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Square And The Thousand-Yard Stare

TownHall's Matt Lewis: "[Maureen Dowd] finally hits the nail on the head when she writes, 'For McCain, being cool meant being a rogue, not a policy wonk; but Obama manages to be a cool College Bowl type, which must irk McCain, who liked to play up his bad-boy cool.' ... Interestingly, this is the same phenomenon [that] caused McCain ... to resent Mitt Romney during the GOP primaries. McCain had been running for president for a decade, but then this really sharp, preppy, polished guy showed up with all this money, PowerPoint presentations, and a perfect family, and started rocking the boat. McCain and Rudy were the cool kids in the back of the class throwing spitballs; Romney was the kid in the front of the class with his hand up to answer every question ... you get the common analogy ... It's not so much that McCain is envious of Obama -- as much as it is that he currently views Obama as a 'goody-goody' poseur who hasn't paid his dues. So yes, I think it's fair to say this is personal. But saying McCain envies Obama is the wrong way of looking at it. He doesn't envy Obama, he looks down his nose at him."

LEST WE FORGET: The Pied Piper Of White People

Stuff Educated Black People Like: "EBP like Oprah. She has an exceptional ability that most other EBP wish they had - the ability to hold the attention of people and make them do, like, or buy just about anything. ... EBP are constantly fighting at work or any place else to get ahead and/or be heard, while Oprah can tell white people to read a book or buy a CD and they do it without second thought. How else do you think Jamie Foxx sold so many albums? Oprah! ... Not even white people cared about Dr. Phil or Racheal Ray until Oprah said they were acceptable white people. ... EBP like Oprah because she's powerful, rich, and kicked Stedman's trifling self out! It isn't necessary for whites to comment to an EBP how much they love Oprah, they already know you do, even if the white person doesn't know why."

Posted by Chris Bodenner at August 7, 2008 12:54 PM