I don’t particularly want to write, or see or hear, anything else about the John Edwards love child mess and the media. But, just to respond to this (and this):
A blog by John McQuaid said that there’s no “physical evidence a la Bill Clinton.” Well, there’s a baby. Not a stained dress left to hang in the closest for a few months but a real cooing, smiling little baby who I assume looks adorable on camera and probably has nice hair. That lil’ tyke is stuffed full of DNA, too. Cute little DNA.
Well, yes. But unless the Obama campaign is going to hire Ken Starr to vet Edwards for the VP slot, or the National Enquirer – or, presumably, the New York Times, if this goes mainstream – is going to infiltrate the Hunter residence, scoop up some baby dribble and ship it off to a DNA lab, this is not “evidence” and won’t be unless someone directly involved decides to go public. Which they’d be crazy to do, especially given that the baby in question is a person, not “evidence,” who will be better off not reading blog archives 13 years hence in which s/he is compared to semen.
The supposed newsworthiness of this story hangs on Edwards’s role as a potential vice presidential or cabinet official. But by that measure, there are about 200 prominent Democrats who fall in the same, vague, unofficial, speculative category. And let’s face it, Obama was never going to choose Edwards for VP, so that rationale is specious on its face. So I don’t understand the cries for Edwards’ head, except as anger/spite. Which, again, makes this gossip news, not news news.
July 27, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Thanks for responding.
I think this story is just starting to break. Right now, there’s no DNA evidence but I think that’s going to change.
That being said, I don’t see anything bad for the baby in establishing paternity; especially later in life. This rumor is out there, period – why not settle it once and for all as soon as possible?
This isn’t news because of who Edwards might have been. It’s news because of who he is – one of the country’s best known politicians who is known for campaigning with his wife who has cancer. Thinking that isn’t a headline is just wishful thinking.
July 27, 2008 at 4:30 pm
I enjoyed your posts, Lee and John.
Lee- I am not sure this is a legitimate story since there is no picture evidence. Until that mystery is solved, I can’t get on board with you.
July 27, 2008 at 4:42 pm
This will hurt progressives if it is true. I pray that it is not, for the dispossessed in general, but mostly for dear Elizabeth Edwards. She deserves so much better.
July 27, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Just because a story isn’t newsworthy doesn’t mean it won’t be treated as such. I can’t for the life of me figure out why people can’t seem to grasp that distinction.
July 27, 2008 at 9:18 pm
It seems like every week there’s a sex scandal on the front page of CNN involving politicians who are less relevant to the average American than John Edwards.
Eliot Spitzer, governor of NJ, mayor of Detroit, Mark Foley, Larry Craig…did any of them have non-district name recognition? This is a person who was nearly the VP four years ago, was a primary candidate a few months ago, and is still very visibile and covered in the news. He’s a celebrity if nothing else, and the amount of fame required for a celebrity sex scandal to be front page news is way below John Edwards’s.
I guess the bottom line is – I’m curious about it, and the traffic on these blogs suggests other people are, too. Say what you will about whether this is or isn’t an important story in the broader world (I think it is as it affects the future of the Democratic party) but it is suspicious if the media decides not to report on a story that people want to read, frivolous or no.
August 8, 2008 at 4:53 pm
It seems like the only blog I’ve come across today that ISN’T covering this story is “The Deuce Diaries” – http://www.thedeucediaries.blogspot.com – and that’s some dude’s blog about his irritable bowel syndrome. Then again, he’ll probably have an entry up any minute now about how Rielle Hunter caused his predicament.