Frank Smith from Kansas is the only respondent here who asked the question that all of the "legit" media should have been asking. Just who was paid for the National Enquirer's "scoop?"

While Nightline asked Edwards if he had paid, or had anyone pay, the woman in question any sums of money, they failed to ask that question of the National Enquirer's snoop.

Quoting Mr. Smith: "Follow the money!"

Anyway, after all the Republicans caught with their pants around their ankles during the past 8 years, it was a Dem's turn.

My response to those who've asked what do I think about the whole mess: "He's a man!"

Now, this is important why?

Well, as long as Judith Miller and similar reporters are so cozy with the politicians, then perhaps the tabloids are going to step in and fill a void of investigative reporting in our country.

Granted, it's not the way we'd like to see things, but perhaps the MSM will wake up when they're scooped by a few more tabloids.

They actually have a pretty good record on political stories, Gary Hart, etc.

This week they're reporting that Bush and Laura have split up because he has returned to drinking.. Draw your own conclusions.

Don't mess with John Edwards's "bangs."

I'm so disappointed that we don't have Edwards locked in as the nominee, or the Vice Presidential nominee, now. As I wrote a year and a half ago, Edwards is the guy that I personally wanted to hammer, above all.

Your fantasy never really had a chance. Edwards could have just ditched his ailing wife and married his mistress, and then you'd have had the problem of criticizing him for doing exactly what McCain did.

What "reporting" was done here? The only way that the Enquirer could have known about Edwards' arrival at the LA Hilton was to have been part of the setup. They're known for paying for stories. How much money and to whom did they pay for this

"scoop?"

Was it the mother? Her boy friend? They simply couldn't have known about it any other way. There was no other way they knew the mom was going to be driven down from Santa Barbara. There was no way they would have known what rooms she had rented. There was no way they knew Edwards was actually going to show. There was no way they would have brought along enough individual teams of bozos to stake out the first, the fourth and the basement floors.

Edwards got his "just desserts," but he also was very cleverly set up.

Follow the money. This is not "reporting" by any stretch of the imagination. To call it such is to dignify it, and to simultaneously diminish the value and ability of the few actual reporters we have left in this country. This is, purely and simply, "entrapment, "bribing" and "spying." This is Linda Tripp conning Monica Lewinsky.

Wow so the National Enquirer is now the paper of record? Does this mean that George and Laura really are on the outs? When do we get all the juicy details? That will be impressive. If it's in the Enquirer it must be true!

How anyone could conceivably accept anything printed in the National Inquirer, especially if it includes any of the "respectable" media, is disappointing. Given the unchallenged record of fabrications and falsifications (especially doctored photos) presented by the tabloid front pages that assault the eye at the supermarket counter, who in his right mind (other than the litttle old ladies who buy these sheets to keep them from withering away altogether) could possibly accept any of their perverse nonsense ?

Much like the Drudge Report, if the Nat'l Inquirer happens occasionally to reveal an actual truth, it does so by sheer accident, not by anything resembling journalistic practices. What's its record of true factual reporting ? Maybe 0.05 % ? The Nat'l Inquirer, like it's clones, sells foul excrement. Because its snoops and papparazi happen to uncover a "scandal" occasionally, there's no cause to credit it with kudos for - - anything. It's still a perveyor of excrement. And we owe rueful thanks to the king of fake, tittilating "journalism' - - good ol' Rupert Murdoch.

He'd have made such a good Vice President.

I searched my own old Letters concerning Edwards. This one, from April of 2007 summed up my feelings pretty well;

http://letters.salon.com/news/feature/2007/04/06/edwards_transcript/permalink/91b1fee899c2b747cc4e9ec2b496d214.html

I'm so disappointed that we don't have Edwards locked in as the nominee, or the Vice Presidential nominee, now. As I wrote a year and a half ago, Edwards is the guy that I personally wanted to hammer, above all.

Edwards' latest lying comes as no surprise to anyone who knew much about how he became a millionaire, suing obstetricians in North Carolina. All we have now confirmed is that there is no lie too outrageous, no hypocrisy too extreme, no prevarication too artful for Edwards.

And as for Mrs. Edwards, even her own statement on this tawdry matter contains its own outrages. According to Mrs. Edwards herself, she has been aware all along that her husband and his campaign staff have been lying to the press, and deliberately misleading everyone in every way they could. Worst of all, Mrs. Edwards couldn't even get through three paragraphs without invoking her own cancer. Incredible. I can see her from here on; at supermarket openings -- "As a cancer survivor, I know the value of this Giganto-Mart..." On appliance-store ads -- "My cancer has made me appreciate a reliable dishwasher..." Spokeswoman for her husband's stock-in-trade -- "If you've been diagnosed with cancer like I have, call 1-800-LAW-SUIT ..."

Sorry, but I cannot believe your suspicions. I believe that Edwards is simply an ordinary cheat and a liar. He lied to his wife and he campaigned knowing he had this in his background. I don't think any of it had to do with supporting Obama. I think it had to do with his own overblown ego. He was touting himself as a possible VP pick for Obama even as this thing was about to break.

Now that's arrogant.