The rest of the media was suspect of the Enquirer, and reluctant to rely on their employees as the basis for their own stories. But the Enquirer is not what it used to be; yes, it occasionally runs stories of aliens and three-headed monsters, or their equivalent,but the line between tabloids and “real” newspapers, between gossip and news, between the legitimate media and trash in print, is not what it used to be.

Other news organizations may not be willing to credit the Enquirer, but they can’t ignore it entirely; the middle ground, which is to send your own reporters to track down the story, is likely to end up posing even more starkly the question of “what’s news?” precisely because it cannot be answered by simply asserting that if it’s only in the Enquirer, it isn’t.

Does anyone care if a former United States senator and presidential candidate ducked into a Beverly Hills hotel two weeks ago for a furtive meeting with his (alleged) mistress and his (alleged) love child?

Almost certainly.

In recent days, as news has emerged that the child’s birth certificate left the father’s name blank, the local media in the senator’s home state -- both television and print – have got into the action, running pictures of the videographer who the then-candidate referred to as “camera girl” that are at least more flattering than the ones the Enquirer has put out, and went part way to answering the “taste” issue that had so many people shaking their heads when the story first broke.
It feels like only yesterday that I was spending half my time arguing just that, as Republicans sought to make President Clinton’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky into an impeachable offense. It wasn’t the sex, they argued, but the lying. I never bought that. It was the sex. Yes, she was an intern. On the other hand, she didn’t get pregnant and have a child. On the other hand, he didn’t have one of his aides come forward and say he was the guy who had the affair: in this case, the fall guy, if that’s what he was, was a younger former associate who was and is married with children, and supposedly invited the woman and child to his home for dinner with his wife and children after publicly taking responsibility for the pregnancy, all of which understandably contributed to people wondering if all of them knew something we didn’t. Like the truth.

Setting up a fall guy to protect the big shot, if that’s what it was (and that’s certainly how it looks), understandably bothers a lot of people. It’s one thing to mess up; it’s one thing to say, truthfully, that the details are not any of our business and simply to refuse to answer questions. If he can live with that, and his wife and kids can live with that, and the other woman can live with that, we should live with that. But setting up some other guy, especially a guy who is married and has a family of his own, to take responsibility sort of stinks.

Besides, if he really was the father, as he announced publicly, why not put his name on the birth certificate? And why hasn’t he come forward in the last two weeks since the Enquirer broke the latest story? One of my friends, who is himself in the news business, says he’s been trying, without success, to find the guy for the last two weeks. I don’t blame the putative father for disappearing, but, coupled with the empty space on the birth certificate, it certainly doesn’t look good for the senator.

But what bothers me most, I have to admit, about this whole affair, if that’s indeed what it was, is the cruelty it seems to evince toward the politician’s wife. She’s sick. Really sick. I can’t imagine what she must be going through now. Or rather, I can imagine, and it is upsetting, especially when I think of her trying to protect their two young children and their twenty-something daughter from the publicity and the gossip.

Regardless, his political career is OVER.

John Edwards repeatedly lied during his Presidential campaign about an extra-marital affair with a novice film-maker, the former Senator admitted to ABC News today.

Democratic presidential candidate former U.S. Senator John Edwards (D-NC) speaks to supporters during a campaign event at the Keene State University in Keene, New Hampshire January 6, 2008.
(Carlos Barria / Reuters)
More PhotosIn an interview for broadcast tonight on Nightline, Edwards told ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff he did have an affair with 42-year old Rielle Hunter, but said that he did not love her.

Edwards also denied he was the father of Hunter's baby girl, Frances Quinn, although the one-time Democratic Presidential candidate said he has not taken a paternity test.

Edwards said he knew he was not the father based on timing of the baby's birth on February 27, 2008. He said his affair ended too soon for him to have been the father.

A former campaign aide, Andrew Young, has said he was the father of the child.

A former campaign aide, Andrew Young, has said he was the father of the child.

First diagnosis in 2004
Mrs. Edwards, 57, was first diagnosed with cancer in the final weeks of the 2004 campaign. The day after Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and Edwards, his running mate, conceded the election to George W. Bush, Edwards announced that his wife had invasive ductal cancer, the most common type of breast cancer, and would undergo treatment.

I don't think Edward's wife was diagnosed at the time this event is purported to have happened.

I'm not going to pretend that Edwards is a bad person for wanting to be happy even if he did go about it the wrong way. I would like to point out that among liberals this guy was the most conservative so I once again find it to be ironic that the 'conservative family guy' is a closet liberal.

I could give two shits. In fact, I only have a problem with him lying (and even then, barely an issue). Who he fucks and how is between he and his wife (regardless of her condition). And frankly, if asked, and he said, "This is a private matter between my family and I, and I will not comment." I would be fine with this. Public figure or not, it's...not...our...business. Either admit it, deny it (if not true), or just don't comment. Any which way, that works for me.

Those of you who are "sickened and digusted"? Quit being self-righteous fucks.

In the context of admitting to an affair, it may seem innocent for Edwards to have misled ABC about the staring point. But the precise date is important. Over the course of nine months Edwards would spend more than $114,000 of the One America Committee's budget on Hunter's films. Whether he did that in an effort to have Hunter around or as a legitimate documentary project would likely make a difference to those who thought they were contributing to a poverty-eradication effort.

I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen.

But let's use John Edwards own words. His remarks on Bill Clinton after the Monica Lewinsky affair:

Seems fair to judge the man by his own standards.

But this decision on his part involved several overlapping betrayals. And the one that is very much a public matter is his betrayal of his supporters and, really, all Democrats nationwide -- one that continued at least until he dropped out in the spring. Edwards made a strong run for the presidency knowing full well that he was carrying on an affair, at least in the early stages of the campaign, which could come to light in the midst of the general election and fatally damage all Democrats' hopes for regaining the presidency. Just think how fun this weekend would be if John Edwards had won the nomination.

But this decision on his part involved several overlapping betrayals. And the one that is very much a public matter is his betrayal of his supporters and, really, all Democrats nationwide -- one that continued at least until he dropped out in the spring. Edwards made a strong run for the presidency knowing full well that he was carrying on an affair, at least in the early stages of the campaign, which could come to light in the midst of the general election and fatally damage all Democrats' hopes for regaining the presidency. Just think how fun this weekend would be if John Edwards had won the nomination.

If you're going to keep picking at it, I'll bite. Where's the line of when we become "self-righteous fucks" about the personal lives of presidential candidates or regular politicians?

- alcoholism?
- religious persuasion?
- membership in controversial, private organizations?

You seem to be fond of quoting corporate HR hiring procedures. Surely you know that people can, will, and do hire based on their private associations?

Seems fair to judge the man by his own standards.

Wolfson: Edwards' Cover-up Cost Clinton the Nomination
Aides Say She Would Have Won Iowa if Edwards Affair was Exposed
By BRIAN ROSS and JAKE TAPPER
Sen. Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic presidential nominee if John Edwards had been caught in his lie about an extramarital affair and forced out of the race last year, insists a top Clinton campaign aide, making a charge that could exacerbate previously existing tensions between the camps of Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama.

I believe we would have won Iowa, and Clinton today would therefore have been the nominee," former Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson told ABCNews.com.

Clinton finished third in the Iowa caucuses barely behind Edwards in second place and Obama in first. The momentum of the insurgent Obama campaign beating two better-known candidates -- not to mention an African-American winning in such an overwhelmingly white state -- changed the dynamics of the race forever.

Obama won 37.6 per cent of the vote. Edwards won 29.7 per cent and Clinton won 29.5 per cent, according to results posted by the Iowa Democratic Party.

"Our voters and Edwards' voters were the same people," Wolfson said the Clinton polls showed. "They were older, pro-union. Not all, but maybe two-thirds of them would have been for us and we would have barely beaten Obama."