Re: "...it would look odd for a paper like, say, the New York Times to print a story that's coming solely from the Enquirer."

Considering the Times' track record as stenographer for VP Dick Cheney's version of the reasons for the invasion of Iraq, I would say it is would be more odd for the Enquirer to quote the New York Times.

He isn't a likely running mate NOW. But he was...do you think that this is a result of the vetting process?

MMM...change...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0725081obama1.html

Salon.com, home to Joe Conasan, Glenn Greenwald, etc., is also home to a story touting the journalistic bona fides of the National Enquirer AND Fox news?

I ask again, are you f***ing serious Mr. Koppelman?

I guess if Drudge links to it, then it must be gospel.

Even if it were true, why should you care? Why should any of us care?

I expect this occasional, deranged trips to looney-land from Slate, but not Salon.com

Perhaps with some more of your prodding the MSM will jump on this obviously very important story being reported by the stellar National Enquirer and the always trustworthy Fox News.

Bravo, sir. Bravo.

It seems to me that if you are a high profile politician with an illicit love child, you would be mind-numbingly stupid to set up a meeting with your former mistress in the BEVERLEY HILTON...which just might be ground zero for the papparazzi and tabloid press.

seems fishy to me.

Why?

If true, it's sad. Especially considering everything else that Elizabeth Edwards has had to deal with. But I'm not really that interested in knowing about it.

How about we show some respect for the privacy of the Edwards family. If either of them becomes a candidate for some public office, perhaps it would be relevant then.

Couldn't read through the entire post. At some point I felt like I was reading a rag like the Enquirer itself. It felt like a celebrity gossip report. It was just too much for me.

Thumbs down.

A Nelson-esque "Ha-ha!"

These sorts of stories about politicians should really never be published. It's particularly tragic, given Elizabeth Edwards' condition, that this should be front page news. Do we need this? Does it really have any impact on our lives? John Edwards has and is suffering plenty, he holds no political office, and -- as noted -- he's not a likely V-P candidate.

Most Americans probably do not recall that, when Francois Mitterand (President of France), his "love child," mistress, and wife all marched in the funeral procession. Yes, newspapers had known about the "lvoe child" for years, and I'm willing to bet that Mrs. M. did, too. But no one said anything about. It wasn't newsworthy.

Why?

1. It is widely circulated and believed by many to be true without the substantiating proof of photographs (yet) or a recognition that the alleged meeting might not be what it seems.

2. Edwards is a politician who is yet seeking public life. Only a few days ago, Edwards continued to talking about how willing he would be to run as Obama's VP.

3. It is perfectly acceptable to publish news about news and rumors both and examine the validity of either.

4. Here at Salon, it is far more relevant than what Hollywood celebrities are doing sexually since Salon has an emphasis on politics.

5. Whatever you personally may feel about politicians keeping their sex life private, other voters may feel otherwise.

I don't care what "other voters" may think. Many thought it was important that they felt like they could have a beer with Bush and look what that's wrought.

If it isn't illegal and the politician isn't running around excoriating people for engaging in the behavior they are caught at, it shouldn't be newsworthy.

The Globe (or one of those) was (is?) reporting on Bush being back on the sauce and having horrible rows with Laura.

Why wasn't that one picked up or further investigated?

Put Shrub under oath in one room, Laura in the other and GRILL them on his drinking. One will cave and we'll know the truth behind his penchant for malaprops and general idiocy.

We need to see why he gets so pissed when Colbert ribs him and why he demands absolute obediance from anyone in his presence.

We'll see what his life is really like - that of a sad, active alcoholic playing games with our country.

Apparently such stories are only relevant when Republicans are engaging in the illicit affairs. *cough* Larry Craig *cough* David Vitter.

Would you rather John Edwards disappear entirely from public life and never know why? Is that actually better than reading about the reason?

Doesn't it concern you that the media outlets to which you afford credibility have done nothing to pursue this allegation?

Are you hoping that a mainstream media stranglehold on stories like this will keep them from coming out? If so, what are you assuming about the political interests of the mainstream media?

AKA-

I love it. Feed the monster by granting authenticity to every smear and rumor out there. Drudge must love you.

Coming soon: "Ob(s)ama, The Gay Muslim Terrorist"

Here at Salon, not only is it NOT relevant what celebrities are doing with their persona lives, it is not relevant what a pol is doing, even John McCain.

Yeah, other voters care about politicians sex lives. They are called wingnuts, aka: Republicans.

Like Vitter, Larry Craig, that Florida page-fondler and so many others who have been caught in their repugnant antics have been incumbants of public elected office at the time of the breaking news stories. Thus, their behaviors are of interest and importance to the public and to their constituents.

In contrast, Edwards is a former senator, now in private practice. His personal activities are of interest and relevance only to his family and friends.

Additionally, the sexually questionable behaviors of the Republicans cited above were strongly at odds with their fiercely stated public personas as morally up-right men.

In otherwords, they were stinking hypocrites and deserved the public skewering they received.