Trafficking in smut now, Steve? Citing the National Enquirer as a source?

It's not "odd" that Edwards is the target. Most nearly every story in the media about Edwards has been negative: the haircut, the house, the hedge fund, the house he sold in DC. The list goes on and on.

Read the comments on Sam Stein's piece and see just how many are telling him he's wasting his time.

You know where else this nonsense showed up? Ann Coulter on Tucker Carlson's show yesterday:

"COULTER: By the way, could I mention something? I mean, it‘s breaking right now as I was coming on air. You mentioned Lizzie Edwards. “National Enquirer” is breaking a major story that will be—we can start the time clock on now when the mainstream media will pick it up, on John Edwards having an 18-month affair."

Nice. I would bet money that Coulter broadcast that to get back at Elizabeth Edwards for calling her out on Hardball. Coulter is just that nasty.

This story is an unsourced POS. Unsubstantiated gossip isn't worth risking credibility over.

Corinne -- I'm not trafficking in smut. I'm raising the same questions tactfully that Sam Stein is. And I'm recommending to Edwards that he trounce these rumors if unsubstantiated.

Your assertions one way or another help him little. This story is now spreading like wildfire.

I hope it's false -- but if the National Enquirer conjured this -- I would say that it's a ballsy thing to publish material about a highly successful trial lawyer.

It's a story -- and I put it up as constructively as I could.

Best regards,

Steve Clemons

Corinne -- If you are right, which I very much hope you are, the Edwards family should take legal action to shut Ann Coulter down.

But that doesn't solve the issue of this other woman and the videos. Peoples' assertions one way or another about Edwards' innocence cannot replace Edwards own definitive statement about this mess -- and yes, he'll have to respond.

Sometimes those definitive statements compel the candidate forward -- and sometimes, like in the Gary Hart case or Bill Clinton case -- they become red meat to those working to disprove the veracity of the defense.

But whether you like it or not -- and whether I do (which I don't) -- this is a political issue now.

It's sad, but true.

-- Steve Clemons

I have piles of respect for you, Steve. I read almost every post on this blog and have for about a year.

I really don't think this kind of stuff deserves your (or anyone elses) attention. It is kind of like the ol' "There are those who would say ... " line of questioning.

If there is something there, let someone with less dignity discuss it.

And I don't particularly think the HuffPo piece was very constructive either.

(and I'm not some Edwards die-hard or even supporter)

What makes this look like a smear job by the right would be the fact that ah... a tabloid had to break the news.

If there were actually emails, the Washington Times would have printed them with glee, and paid the Enquirer a hell of a lot of money for them.

If there were emails, why didn't the Enquirer print them as proof? Because as a tabloid it's maybe... not in the business of truth??

There's a reason the Pentagon Papers were published and not just written about...

I'm surprised at Slate. I'd gather the author's already chosen a candidate for 2008...

Steve, your post isn't helping to stop the wildfire. And who would have an interest spreading that wildfire? Seeing as how Mitch McConnell's office helpfully provided reporters with talking points about Graeme Frost, you might find some clues there.

Sam hasn't raised questions "tactfully." His stories have been badly sourced and highly speculative.

Of course the National Enquirer is "ballsy." They're the ones that reported that George Bush is having an affair with Condoleezza Rice and Laura is leaving him over it. NE also reported that Hillary Clinton had a lesbian affair while Bill was having an affair with Monica. And you "hope" their story about Edwards is false?

Stick to what you know Steve. You're in uncharted territory here.

Thanks for the counsel Nolan -- I know that this story sucks. I can't be a fair commentator in the stuff I write about if I don't raise what I think are going to be issues.

I could have written an article that said -- see what the bad guys on the right are doing....but the story started with HuffPost. Perhaps someone is being gamed here -- and I have acknowledged that in my post.

But Mickey Kaus, also a tough-edged commentator -- sometimes wrong but not frequently, also jumped in...and now a quick review of the blogosphere shows this pummeling around the right and the left spheres.

I like John Edwards -- and am close to many senior people on his team. But I can't let that be the indicator of what I post.

I tried to be constructive -- and give the benefit of the doubt to Edwards -- unlike many commentators, but to write nothing would be an abdication somewhat of what I do here. If the same material had been out on Giuliani, or Richardson, or Brownback, or Biden, I'd try to raise the constructive questions -- and be fair -- as I thought I was with Richardson last year.

There are rumors percolating again about someone we all know -- and the country's top political polls commentator said that that could be an issue if those rumors got legs. I'm not going to write more about it because I don't see a post on HuffPost and Slate -- but we can't stick our heads in the sand when these kind of sleazy accusations emerge.

Edwards is a grown up. He needs to fight the untruth with truth -- and make sure he can substantiate his position.

If he can't, then he's a waste of time. I hope he will respond. . .definitively and powerfully.

But my role is not to be a flack for him if he can't do this. I didn't create the story -- but it is politically significant now.

-- Steve Clemons

You bring up an interesting point. I have to admit that I was really relieved when you posted a similar question about Bill Richardson last year, (too lazy to find the link) because I had the same questions about Gov. Richardson and I wanted answers. I thought it would perhaps help start a wave to get him to address the rumors that have been circulating for years. Of course, it didn't, but I appreciated the effort.

So, I guess it would be hypocritical of me to be pleased when you asked similar questions of Richardson but be pissed when you ask those questions of Edwards. Fair enough.

I'm still not buying what the National Enquirer is selling.

Best,
Nolan

Nolan -- and other readers...I know this is a very, very sensitive matter, so I'm responding to more on this thread than I normally have time to do.

But I hope the National Enquirer is wrong. If they are, then Elizabeth and John Edwards should immediately fire a letter to the paper demanding retraction and legal action if it isn't done.

This kind of attack has enormous legal implications -- and Coulter if she's driving this knows that, so does the National Enquirer. So does John Edwards.

He should take hard, pressing legal action immediately in my view because this is the kind of thing that can't be left hanging, even as disgusting as the charge is.

I hope that the National Enquirer loses a legal challenge.

best, Steve

Well, if Americans would grow up, this wouldn't be a story. A politician having an affair is about the least surprising thing possible, and not important if it has no other ramifications.

My take on this story is that the almost definite silence from the Edwards campaign in of itself is a mystery. This story is now on cable news for goodness sake! I was watching Chris Matthews this morning and watching him comment on this rumor made it seem all the more real. It's not as if Edwards can't put a stop to it once and for all.

As much as I hate to say this, my gut instinct tells me this story is true and the Edwards campaign is terrified to let the cat out of the bag.

PS. The Enquirer broke the Limbaugh pills story, the Jennifer Flowers story, OJ trial shoe angle, and Jesse Jackson's illegitimate child story.

My take on this story is that the almost definite silence from the Edwards campaign in of itself is a mystery. This story is now on cable news for goodness sake! I was watching Chris Matthews this morning and watching him comment on this rumor made it seem all the more real. It's not as if Edwards can't put a stop to it once and for all.

As much as I hate to say this, my gut instinct tells me this story is true and the Edwards campaign is terrified to let the cat out of the bag.

PS. The Enquirer broke the Limbaugh pills story, the Jennifer Flowers story, OJ trial shoe angle, and Jesse Jackson's illegitimate child story.

Well, whether it's true or not, the corporate bullies who hate Edwards for not playing their game will be very happy with the damage done. All it takes in this country to ruin someone is a lie about sex......I despair at the future of this country.

Janis -- I'm not going to speculate on whether it is true or not. It's a political issue at this point -- and deserves a solid response from Edwards....and in my view, a legal response, if he denies the allegations.

But -- all campaigns and Dems need to get ready for what happens when and if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination. Bill Clinton will be a target of similar kinds of allegations -- and we need to have a high bar for what is real, what is not -- and how they will respond "truthfully."

And there will be dirt thrown at Obama if he wins the nomination....so the concerned community needs to get ready to figure out strategies to respond.

Hopefully, Edwards will respond soon. But as I said before, these kinds of stories are the worst -- which is why I hope Edwards sues the National Enquirer and those responsible -- if they are complete fabrications.

-- Steve Clemons

I feel sick to my stomach. All I can think of is the valiant, steadfastly loyal Elizabeth Edwards out there working her heart out to help her husband. While she is dying.

I am very sad to find this story here. If it's out there and "everyone" is reporting it....the rumors are spreading like wildfire.

I may throw up.

I am sorry I even read this. More fuel to the fire.

Where is it written that every blog has an obligation to talk about such stuff? BEFORE it is confirmed? And, help it along?

ESPECIALLY....when there are so many other topics -- truly important to this nation -- that you have refused to cover...at all.

Very disappointed.

Sorry you are disappointed Sandy. I have to write fairly about what I feel is important -- but I respect that you need to make your own assessments.

I have an update above. The woman mentioned in the case has issued somewhat of a denial which is a good move -- though I wish Edwards had issued his own definitive statement and called for a retraction.

There will be much more of this kind of thing as the campaign heats up -- and responsible political blogs will have to find a way to responsibly cover these issues. I thought my commentary was quite responsible and balanced -- but to ask me not to comment at all on something that has become an issue is not something I'm comfortable with.

-- Steve Clemons

From MyDD
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/10/11/161518/89
Rielle Hunter released the following statement through a spokesperson:

"The innuendoes and lies that have appeared on the internet and in the National Enquirer concerning John Edwards are not true, completely unfounded and ridiculous. My video production company was hired by the Edwards camp on a 6 month contract, which we completed December 31, 2006. When working for the Edwards camp, my conduct as well as the conduct of my entire team was completely professional. This concocted story is just dirty politics and I want no part of it."

Just a total B.S. story.

Remember that article in the Post a couple of weeks ago? It talked about the fact that lies have legs, and denials give the lies wings.

Just the act of denying a lie reinforces the belief in many people that the lie is true, because you have to repeat the lie in order to deny it.

The Right has taken advantage of this Goebels strategy for years.

The issue is, really, what can we do? What can be done to effectively -- and I'm not talking about this one case, because like everyone here I haven't a clue whether this is true or not -- hit back at the lies and the liars.

That was the problem for Kerry. That was the problem for Gore. Both assumed that denials would strengthen the lies, and tried to change the subject. Both failed, and got trashed in the corporate media. The corporate media still repeats the lies about Gore claiming to have invented the Internet. We can easily imagine that if this Edwards story is a lie, it will still be repeated endlessly and believed by at least 28% of the American public.

That is just sad.

But there has to be an answer. There has to be some standard for the non-Fox broadcasters. There has to be some accountability, some actual reporting, some half-hearted effort to determine the truth and tell it, by someone.

Today, I can't think of anyone even trying. It's all a game, and everyone loses.

Dammit, Steve, I wish you'd quit tripping over the gophers on your way to the elephant pen.

Your knees must be killin' you.

Oh for god's sake, please spare us the I'm a good guy routine. A political candidate may have had a extramarital affair and ended it? THIS is news?

And you respected that first post of Stein's
at HuffingtonPost? It was the lowest form of "journalism" I've read outside of tabloids. GET the story first and then report it once you have something real. Huffington apparently hired Stein FOR this hatchet job. Did Edwards ask his wife for a divorce as Newt did while she was in a hospital bed? THAT's a story. Having a fling is not (if he did).

It's one thing if a politican is voting against an entire group of people for how they live and then lives as they do. But a possible extramarital affair and we see you (whom we have respected) seeming to be so SORRY you HAVE to write about this? Sure.

It's slime, Steve. And now you're part of it.
What kind of 'values' are these. You do have choices about what is valid news.

I don't exactly live in a cave, but this is the first I've heard of this.

Edwards is so handsome, I wouldn't be surprised if some of those closet queens in the RepubliKlan party weren't having some penis envy. Their obssession with Clinton's "package" was over the top.

The Coultergeist is so unattractive, I think she can't stand to see a Democtrat's marriage survive. Thank goodness this venomous viper has no spawn. So maybe Chris Matthews should ask the Coultergeist what she thinks about Rudy's infidelities and his request to the court to have his mistress move into Gracie Mansion while he was still married and his children lived there. Perhaps he dips his dick in holy water first and that makes it all okay, in her "Christian" book and all the other Born-Again Bible Thumpers?

Barrrffff.

I don't exactly live in a cave, but this is the first I've heard of this.

Edwards is so handsome, I wouldn't be surprised if some of those closet queens in the RepubliKlan party weren't having some penis envy. Their obssession with Clinton's "package" was over the top.

The Coultergeist is so unattractive, I think she can't stand to see a Democtrat's marriage survive. Thank goodness this venomous viper has no spawn. So maybe Chris Matthews should ask the Coultergeist what she thinks about Rudy's infidelities and his request to the court to have his mistress move into Gracie Mansion while he was still married and his children lived there. Perhaps he dips his dick in holy water first and that makes it all okay, in her "Christian" book and all the other Born-Again Bible Thumpers?

Barrrffff.

This is the first I've heard of this crap.

Unfortunately, by giving Edwards the advice of reading Hamilton's confessions about adultery you give the impression that you think there may be a hint of truth to the "issue".

CLD -- not so. I don't know the truth of issue. I just know what has political weight and what doesn't. Bill Clinton should have pulled a Hamilton. He would have been fine in my view.

And then -- we might have had semi-normalized relations with North Korea (and no nukes). We might have had a serious peace deal in the Middle East. And we might have had ourselves on a different, potentially more constructive track with Iran. All of these Clinton tried to manage at the very end of his presidency -- in a rush.

Before then, he'd been terribly tied down and distracted by the legal challenges of the Lewinsky episode.

Scandals have costs -- and how you manage them can send lots of signals.

Edwards has denied the allegations, sort of. But I think he should be demanding a retraction -- and should people into a war room to undermine those who created this false story. It would be healthy for this country for those pushing lies to be punished -- but I'm still waiting to hear that from presidential candidate John Edwards.

-- steve clemons