First of all, Edwards looked tired and wan-not surprising considering what he has been going through the past couple of weeks.

More importantly, beyond admitting that he committed a “serious error in judgement” and engaged in an affair with Rielle Hunter in 2006, I firmly believe that he is still lying about several key points, most notably being the father of Hunter’s baby girl and not having any knowledge of monies paid to Hunter. I also believe that the coming weeks will show that.

First of all, Edwards stated his willingness to take a paternity test, something one would think he would have taken after the child was born in February. Not withstanding that point, it is easy for him to express willingness to take such a test. Guess who holds the keys to that castle? Rielle Hunter, that’s who, and she is the woman who is allegedly receiving $15,000 a month from someone close to Edwards. Unless of course, Andrew Young wants to come forward and claim his parental rights to authorize a test (remember, no father’s name appears on the birth certificate).

Interestingly, there was one part of the interview in which Edwards was clearly unable to offer a coherent response. That was regarding the picture of him in the hotel room holding the baby. For some reason, he did not want to concede that was him in the picture,even speculating that it might be a forgery. He told Woodruff that he was wearing a different blue shirt that night. His explanation was absolutely unconvincing.

One especially astounding statement came when Edwards told Woodruff that he “used the fact that the (National Enquirer) story contained many falsities to deny it”, which he described as “being 99% honest”!!

Well, in that case, it’s time to “Move On”- to Denver!

Not so fast, John Edwards. There is more.

In trying to explain why he was at the Beverly Hilton Hotel on the evening of July 21-until 2:40 am- visiting a woman he was no longer involved with and a baby that was not his, Edwards stated that he wanted to convince Hunter not to reveal the affair.

My question is, what was different two weeks ago from 2 months ago or last year, when he and Hunter were denying the story? Wasn’t she getting $15,000 a month and living in a swanky home in Santa Barbara?

And that leads to what may be Edwards’ biggest problem down the pike. Where is all that money coming from? Edwards told Woodruff that he had no idea. Meanwhile, with the story breaking, his former campaign finance (FINANCE) director, Fred Baron, is now saying that he threw a few bucks in Hunter’s direction-without Edwards’ knowledge. More specifically, Baron has told the Dallas Morning News that he paid (with his own funds) to have Ms Hunter relocated from Chapel Hill, NC to Santa Barbara because she was being hounded by reporters. At this point, beyond a personal indiscretion, is there a possibility that campaign funds and contributions were being diverted to Edwards’ mistress? I am not saying this is the case, but I think it merits an inquiry by whichever regulatory/law enforcement agency has jurisdiction, to say nothing of all those ace investigative reporters working for the mainstream news media-if they are interested. On the other hand, I suppose they could just leave it to that trashy tabloid National Enquirer to continue doing their job for them.

The bottom line is this: Edwards, in his public statement, says that now that he has come clean, he will have no further statement on the matter. He is mistaken. In my opinion, his interview and his statement are still full of lies. Mr Edwards still has a lot of questions to answer-questions that will not stop now that the story has finally come out. He apparently is hiding something. He does not want to own up to being the father of the child, and he does not want to admit any connection to a lot of money that has been paid to Ms Hunter to move her around the country and support her.

This story is not going away any time soon. Nor should it.

gary fouse
fousesquawk

…working as a mail-handler in the Office of Legislative Affairs after starting her affair with Clinton…

So THAT’S how they all avoided prosecution……..a combination of a spelling error and interpretive dance!

Nope. That story was broken by the executive editor of the Miami Herald, Tom Fiedler, and the investigative reporter Jim McGee. The National Enquirer picked it up later, along with several other media outlets.

The reason the Edwards story is newsworthy is that he paid $100K to his lover for four months of work that produced only four measly campaign videos on the Internet. Cronyism is newsworthy, and this sort of story adds another dimension: campaign funds misused on a politician’s sex pal. I remember the outrage from young working women when they found out how much Monica Lewinsky got paid working as a mail-handler in the Office of Legislative Affairs after starting her affair with Clinton and later her paid position at the Pentagon, which was a rather difficult place to get a job at the time. (Lewinsky and Hunter certainly made a lot of money from sex, didn’t they?)

And yes, I think they would have done the same thing with Romney and Thompson.

Well I guess as long as you believe it, that’s all that matters.

By the way, I have some lovely Ocean front property for sale. Only $1 million. Let me know.

But I’m still not sure what, exactly, the MSM should have done further with the Edwards thing.

Their jobs. Investigate. Ask. Not ignore it and tell their bloggers to not even write about (like the LA Times)

That the Enquirer was on the right track was obvious from the moment that they were able to place Mr Edwards and Miss Hunter — though with a suite rented in the name of one of Miss Hunter’s friends — in the same hotel at an uncomfortable hour. The Enquirer didn’t have the photos at first, but I think that they might have sandbagged everyone on that account, and simply withheld publication for a couple of weeks, to increase sales for more than one issue.

The Enquirer is the gold-standard when it comes to sensationalistic, worthless, tabloid journalism

Oh, I’m not sure about that. Considering the way the NYT played up a false affair story about McCain, the way Newsweek screeched (falsely) about flushed Korans, the way Dan Rather tried to rig an election by intentionally airing forged documents, and too many more to describe at length, I think the Enquirer has serious competition for that gold standard.

At least the Enquirer is an equal-opportunity tabloid trasher. That implies some level of integrity, however weak, that the MSM lacks. As NC Cop said, if this were a Republican, it would have been above the fold on the NYT and led the evening news on NBC/CNN/etc for a week now.

The Enquirer is the gold-standard when it comes to sensationalistic, worthless, tabloid journalism – and yet they beat the snot out of the MSM on this story. Why?

Well, assuming that the “love child” isn’t his, I’d say…not really.

Bandwith limitations prevent me from adequately bringing up the pants-down Presidency of William Jefferson Clinton. The MSM is still convinced that it was just GOP obsession with sex.

And I thought Livingston was outed by Larry Flynt.

And yet it did not stop the MSM from running wild with the story. Why the double standard now?

The Enquirer is the gold-standard when it comes to sensationalistic, worthless, tabloid journalism – and yet they beat the snot out of the MSM on this story. Why?

And I thought Livingston was outed by Larry Flynt.

I will concede, however, that the McCain/lobbyist thing was pretty weak on the NYT’s part, even if they could excuse themselves into covering the story from a “corruption” angle.

But I’m still not sure what, exactly, the MSM should have done further with the Edwards thing.

Oh? David Vitter and Larry Craig will be glad to hear that. And Bob Livingston, too. The MSM trampled each other in the rush to publish allegations about them. How about the false allegations of an affair between John McCain and a lobbyist? No restraint was evident there! Your claim makes is not backed up by history.

Does it not bother you in the least that the Enquirer showed better journalistic judgment than the rest of the MSM? Talk about hitting rock bottom – the Enquirer outperforms all those “layers of fact-checkers” the MSM boasts about. I am quite sure the MSM was trying hard to find evidence for this story the same way a mouse tries hard to find a cat.

Personally I would love to see the MSM “parked outside the Beverly Hills Hilton”. It would be a vast improvement over their recent actions of polishing the Edwards’ legend.

I leave you with these stages of MSM denial from Mickey Klaus (which was eaten in a prior post):

1) Too horrible and shocking; it can’t possibly be true;

2) It’s not true;

3) You can’t prove it’s true;

4) Why are you trying to prove it’s true?

5) It’s disgusting that you’ve proved it’s true;

6) What’s the big deal anyway?