Pictures of Edwards Love Child

[red states rule]

I wonder why the liberal media is ignoring this story? Could it be Pretty Boy Edwards is a Dem?


http://www.nationalenquirer.com/images/ne/209544/58768.jpg


The NATIONAL ENQUIRER is releasing the photograph that the world has been waiting for – the first-ever picture of John Edwards and his love child!

The stunning “spy photo” shows the former presidential contender holding his infant daughter Frances Quinn Hunter at the Beverly Hilton hotel in Los Angeles – where the ENQUIRER caught him visiting the baby’s mother, his mistress Rielle Hunter.

Edwards is holding his love child while standing in front of a distinctive striped curtain.

The same window covering hangs in each one of the hotel’s guest rooms – and is clearly visible in photos of guest rooms on the hotel’s Web site.

“These photos are damning proof,” said a source close to the situation.

“He’s been caught lying about his affair with Rielle and their love child for many months – and now the proof against him is piling up.

“His elaborate coverup is unraveling at the seams.”

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/exclusive_john_edwards_love_child_photos/celebrity/65258

[manu1959]

why is he sweating that hotel has ac blasting 24-7

[red states rule]

why is he sweating that hotel has ac blasting 24-7

Has Pretty Boy denied this story? The liberal media has ignored it - so I do not know if he has

[Little-Acorn]

Has Pretty Boy denied this story? The liberal media has ignored it - so I do not know if he has

He has said it is "tabloid trash".

But he has not said whether it is true or false.

Something I'm wondering about, is whether any other media outlets (New York Times, CNN, USAToday, Fox News etc.) are investigating it.

I've heard nothing from any of them. Then, I haven't been listening very hard for this particular story.

If the Enquirer (or whoever came out with the story) is lying about a major VP/Candidate candidate, wouldn't that be news in itself? Are the other media looking into it?

Where is any curiosity about the truth/falsehood of the story?

[red states rule]

He has said it is "tabloid trash".

But he has not said whether it is true or false.

Something I'm wondering about, is whether any other media outlets (New York Times, CNN, USAToday, Fox News etc.) are investigating it.

I've heard nothing from any of them. Then, I haven't been listening very hard for this particular story.

If the Enquirer (or whoever came out with the story) is lying about a major VP/Candidate candidate, wouldn't that be news in itself? Are the other media looking into it?

Where is any curiosity about the truth/falsehood of the story?

What strikes me is how the liberal media is ignoring another story about a Democrat

Today the Detriot Mayor went to jail and the word Democrat did not appear in the story

I really do not care about it, except how the liberal media is iignoring it

But if it was a Republcan, the reporters would be camped outside of his home (and the girls) demanding a statement

[hjmick]

Well, the party is expecting some sort of explanation and they want it soon:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=16591

[red states rule]

Well, the party is expecting some sort of explanation and they want it soon:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=16591

How about he forgot to put a helmet on the soldier?

[hjmick]

How about he forgot to put a helmet on the soldier?

How about he forgot he was married?

[red states rule]

How about he forgot he was married?

You mean the wife he used as a political prop when she had cancer?

Cheating on your spouse is bad enough - but cheating on your sick spouse is even worse

[Little-Acorn]

http://www.anncoulter.com/

ONLY HIS HAIR DRESSER KNOWS FOR SURE!

by Ann Coulter
August 6, 2008

The mainstream media's reaction to the National Enquirer's reports on John Edwards' "love child" scandal has been reminiscent of the Soviet press. Edwards' name has simply been completely whitewashed out of the news. Say, why isn't anyone talking about John Edwards for vice president anymore? No, seriously –- hey! Why are we going to a commercial break?

I suspect that if I tried to look up coverage of the Democratic primaries in Nexis news archives, Edwards' name will have disappeared from the debates. By next week, Edwards won't have been John Kerry's running mate in 2004.

Do you know what this means? At this precise moment in time, I could call Edwards a name that would send me to rehab, and the media wouldn't be able to report it!

A Washington Post reporter defended the total blackout on the National Enquirer's John Edwards' love child story, telling the Times of London: "Edwards is no longer an elected official and he is not running for office now. Don't expect wall-to-wall coverage." This was the perfect guy to talk to because if there's one thing they're careful about in London, it's tabloid excess.

Isn't there some level of coverage between "wall-to-wall" and "double-secret probation, delta-force level total news blackout" when it comes to a sex scandal involving a current Democratic vice presidential and Cabinet prospect?

Hey, what sort of "elected official" was Ted Haggard again? He was the Christian minister no one outside of his own parish had ever heard of until he was caught in a gay sex scandal last year. Then he suddenly became the Pope of the Protestants. And yet, despite the fact that Haggard was not an "elected official," the Post gave that story wall-to-wall coverage. And what sort of "elected officials" were Mel Gibson, Rush Limbaugh and Bill Bennett?

The MSM justify banner coverage of the smallest malfeasance by any Christian or conservative, with or without independent verification, with the lame excuse of "hypocrisy." Hey, why didn't you say so! If all it takes to get the Edwards story into the establishment press is a little hypocrisy, boy, have I got a story for you!

Based on information currently saturating the Internet: (1) The entire schmaltzy Edwards campaign consisted of this self-professed moralist telling us how much he loved the poor and loved his cancer-stricken wife; (2) the following was Edwards' response to CBS News anchor Katie Couric's question about whether voters should care if a presidential candidate is faithful to his spouse:

"Of course. I mean, for a lot of Americans -- including the family that I grew up with, I mean, it's fundamental to how you judge people and human character -- whether you keep your word, whether you keep what is your ultimate word, which is that you love your spouse, and you'll stay with them. ... I think the most important qualities in a president in today's world are trustworthiness -- sincerity, honesty, strength of leadership. And -- and certainly that goes to a part of that."

There you have it, boys: Go to town, MSM!

Moreover, the National Enquirer reports that Edwards is paying Rielle Hunter -- the former "Lisa Druck" -- $15,000 a month in "hush money." Shouldn't the IRS be investigating whether Edwards is deducting those payments as a "business expense"?

Maybe The Washington Post didn't hear about the Enquirer catching Edwards in a hotel with his mistress and love child since it happened way out in the sleepy little burg of Los Angeles near the corner of Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevards -- you know, the middle of nowhere. But surely the public can count on the Los Angeles Times to report on a tabloid scandal occurring under its very nose.

Kausfiles produced this e-mail from an L.A. Times editor to its bloggers soon after the Enquirer's stakeout of Edwards visiting the alleged mistress and love child at the Beverly Hilton:


From: "Pierce, Tony"
Date: July 24, 2008 10:54:41 AM PDT
Subject: john edwards

Hey bloggers,

There has been a little buzz surrounding John Edwards and his alleged affair. Because the only source has been the National Enquirer we have decided not to cover the rumors or salacious speculations. So I am asking you all not to blog about this topic until further notified.

If you have any questions or are ever in need of story ideas that would best fit your blog, please don't hesitate to ask.

Keep rockin,
Tony


Hey, I have a story idea I think the L.A. Times might like: How about something on the glorious workers' revolution that will restore the means of production to the people and create a workers' paradise right here on Earth, free of the shackles of capitalism?

I assume it would be jejune to point out that the MSM would be taking the wall-to-wall approach, rather than the total blackout approach, to the love child story if it were a story about Mitt Romney's love child or, indeed, Larry Craig's love child. They'd bring Ted Koppel out of retirement to cover that. Katie Couric, Brian Williams and Charles Gibson would be anchoring the evening news from Romney's front yard. They might even get Dan Rather to produce some forged documents for the occasion.

But with a Democrat sex scandal, the L.A. Times is in a nail-biting competition with The Washington Post, The New York Times, ABC, NBC and CBS for the Pulitzer for "Best Suppressed Story."

[actsnoblemartin]

democrats: fucking your wife since 1992 :laugh2:

[red states rule]

democrats: fucking your wife since 1992 :laugh2:

and your sister and your daughter

[crin63]

I misread the thread when I first looked at it. Obama was the 1st word above this thread.

I thought it said, " Obama, Edwards Love Child". :laugh2:

[actsnoblemartin]

I misread the thread when I first looked at it. Obama was the 1st word above this thread.

I thought it said, " Obama, Edwards Love Child". :laugh2:

hey its possible, remember "yes we can?"

[red states rule]

hey its possible, remember "yes we can?"

Yes Edwards did

[Kathianne]

http://www.anncoulter.com/

ONLY HIS HAIR DRESSER KNOWS FOR SURE!

by Ann Coulter
August 6, 2008

The mainstream media's reaction to the National Enquirer's reports on John Edwards' "love child" scandal has been reminiscent of the Soviet press. Edwards' name has simply been completely whitewashed out of the news. Say, why isn't anyone talking about John Edwards for vice president anymore? No, seriously –- hey! Why are we going to a commercial break?

I suspect that if I tried to look up coverage of the Democratic primaries in Nexis news archives, Edwards' name will have disappeared from the debates. By next week, Edwards won't have been John Kerry's running mate in 2004.

Do you know what this means? At this precise moment in time, I could call Edwards a name that would send me to rehab, and the media wouldn't be able to report it!

A Washington Post reporter defended the total blackout on the National Enquirer's John Edwards' love child story, telling the Times of London: "Edwards is no longer an elected official and he is not running for office now. Don't expect wall-to-wall coverage." This was the perfect guy to talk to because if there's one thing they're careful about in London, it's tabloid excess.

Isn't there some level of coverage between "wall-to-wall" and "double-secret probation, delta-force level total news blackout" when it comes to a sex scandal involving a current Democratic vice presidential and Cabinet prospect?

Hey, what sort of "elected official" was Ted Haggard again? He was the Christian minister no one outside of his own parish had ever heard of until he was caught in a gay sex scandal last year. Then he suddenly became the Pope of the Protestants. And yet, despite the fact that Haggard was not an "elected official," the Post gave that story wall-to-wall coverage. And what sort of "elected officials" were Mel Gibson, Rush Limbaugh and Bill Bennett?

The MSM justify banner coverage of the smallest malfeasance by any Christian or conservative, with or without independent verification, with the lame excuse of "hypocrisy." Hey, why didn't you say so! If all it takes to get the Edwards story into the establishment press is a little hypocrisy, boy, have I got a story for you!

Based on information currently saturating the Internet: (1) The entire schmaltzy Edwards campaign consisted of this self-professed moralist telling us how much he loved the poor and loved his cancer-stricken wife; (2) the following was Edwards' response to CBS News anchor Katie Couric's question about whether voters should care if a presidential candidate is faithful to his spouse:

"Of course. I mean, for a lot of Americans -- including the family that I grew up with, I mean, it's fundamental to how you judge people and human character -- whether you keep your word, whether you keep what is your ultimate word, which is that you love your spouse, and you'll stay with them. ... I think the most important qualities in a president in today's world are trustworthiness -- sincerity, honesty, strength of leadership. And -- and certainly that goes to a part of that."

There you have it, boys: Go to town, MSM!

Moreover, the National Enquirer reports that Edwards is paying Rielle Hunter -- the former "Lisa Druck" -- $15,000 a month in "hush money." Shouldn't the IRS be investigating whether Edwards is deducting those payments as a "business expense"?

Maybe The Washington Post didn't hear about the Enquirer catching Edwards in a hotel with his mistress and love child since it happened way out in the sleepy little burg of Los Angeles near the corner of Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevards -- you know, the middle of nowhere. But surely the public can count on the Los Angeles Times to report on a tabloid scandal occurring under its very nose.

Kausfiles produced this e-mail from an L.A. Times editor to its bloggers soon after the Enquirer's stakeout of Edwards visiting the alleged mistress and love child at the Beverly Hilton:


From: "Pierce, Tony"
Date: July 24, 2008 10:54:41 AM PDT
Subject: john edwards

Hey bloggers,

There has been a little buzz surrounding John Edwards and his alleged affair. Because the only source has been the National Enquirer we have decided not to cover the rumors or salacious speculations. So I am asking you all not to blog about this topic until further notified.

If you have any questions or are ever in need of story ideas that would best fit your blog, please don't hesitate to ask.

Keep rockin,
Tony


Hey, I have a story idea I think the L.A. Times might like: How about something on the glorious workers' revolution that will restore the means of production to the people and create a workers' paradise right here on Earth, free of the shackles of capitalism?

I assume it would be jejune to point out that the MSM would be taking the wall-to-wall approach, rather than the total blackout approach, to the love child story if it were a story about Mitt Romney's love child or, indeed, Larry Craig's love child. They'd bring Ted Koppel out of retirement to cover that. Katie Couric, Brian Williams and Charles Gibson would be anchoring the evening news from Romney's front yard. They might even get Dan Rather to produce some forged documents for the occasion.

But with a Democrat sex scandal, the L.A. Times is in a nail-biting competition with The Washington Post, The New York Times, ABC, NBC and CBS for the Pulitzer for "Best Suppressed Story."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2JmMjY1ZWQ0MGZkY2I3NjIwZDg0ODc2ZTAzZmNmMTQ=


August 8, 2008 6:00 AM

The Edwards Scandal and the Agony of the MSM
They know it’s news. They just wish it would go away.

By Byron York

I spent part of Thursday corresponding with people at major news organizations that have not reported the John Edwards “love child” story. Why haven’t they mentioned the scandal? Are they doing their own investigating of the National Enquirer’s allegations? Are they under management directives not to report it?

Most of the conversations — all of the revealing ones — were off the record; like anyone else, people in the press aren’t particularly eager to speak publicly about topics that make them uncomfortable. But from the exchanges, it’s possible to piece together some of the rationales journalists are using to continue not to report the Edwards story — and to see how the whole strange episode will end. So without quoting anyone or betraying any confidences, here is what appears to be going on:


First, the journalists don’t believe that news organizations should just uncritically pass on the reporting of the Enquirer. They have a point; the Enquirer has been quite accurate on some stories and inaccurate on others. One could argue that the tabloid’s reporting on this particular story contains a wealth of detail that remains un-denied by Edwards or anyone else. Still, there’s nothing wrong with news organizations being skeptical of the source.

But the question is not whether the news organizations should simply repeat the Enquirer’s reporting. It’s whether they are actively pursuing the story, doing their own reporting in an effort to confirm the basic allegations that Edwards had an affair with campaign staffer Rielle Hunter, and then had a baby with her, and is now covering it up. And here it appears — from this completely unscientific survey — that there is not a lot of independent reporting going on.

Instead, some big-time journalists seem to believe the Enquirer has nailed the story, and they are waiting for the tabloid to release the full results of its reporting. In the meantime, they are staying away from the story because it appeared in the Enquirer. In other words, they’re waiting for the Enquirer to fully report a story that they wouldn’t otherwise report… because it’s in the Enquirer.

That could have changed by this point. If news organizations had thrown a lot of resources at the story in an attempt to confirm (or disprove) the Enquirer’s allegations, it’s likely some of them would have come up with something in the two and a half weeks since the Enquirer reported the story on July 22. Instead, there has been nothing.
...

[red states rule]

Reminds me on how Newsweek and most of the liberal media sat on the Bill and Monica story

[Kathianne]

It's going to break out, in hours not days.

[red states rule]

It's going to break out, in hours not days.

Yea, then we have to endure the usual left wing spin

It is is personal life. It is his families business. Why are you interested in his sex life. Bla, bla, bla

[theHawk]

Another shitbag liberal caught lying through his teeth to the American public.

[red states rule]

Another shitbag liberal caught lying through his teeth to the American public.

and libs are giving him a pass

How typical

[hjmick]

Hell, this will probably get him the VP slot.

[red states rule]

Hell, this will probably get him the VP slot.

or become a "preacher" and mentor :laugh2: