How is this at all news? "Now, as I've already said, the two stories aren't completely analogous." Try not analogous at all, dude. Guilty plea versus unsubstantiated National Enquirer story.

Slate was sure scraping the bottom of the barrel today.

Uskglass:

How is this at all news? "Now, as I've already said, the two stories aren't completely analogous." Try not analogous at all, dude. Guilty plea versus unsubstantiated National Enquirer story.

Slate was sure scraping the bottom of the barrel today.

Do you think the Edwards story is not news because you think homo-hypocrisy is news but hetero-hypocrisy is not? If you have another reason for thinking it's not news, please explain.

Um-m-m-m, because it's the freakin' ENQUIRER!?!?!?!

So, does that mean we have to examine the apparent bias in the press's lack of eagerness to cover the alien baby and bigfoot stories, too?

Has Edwards ever used his position to oppress out-of-wedlock parents? His "hypocrisy," as Shafer describes it, is limited to denying something embarassing. If that is hypocrisy, it's a hypocrisy that is not dangerous to our republic or any of its citizens. It is hypocrisy only in the sense of the respect sin pays to virtue.

When Larry Craig actively promoted an anti-homosexual agenda while being secretly homosexual himself (or homosexually inclined), he set himself up for a well-deserved fall. What has Edwards done that is even remotely equivalent? If he has attempted to hide a personal extramarital affair (and all we have so far is a gossip rag's story to indicate that), is that really as newsworthy as Craig's story?

Let's sum up: no crime was committed; no court action ensued; no prior history of attacking the group he has supposedly joined; not currently a public servant.

DrLEM:

Um-m-m-m, because it's the freakin' ENQUIRER!?!?!?!

So, does that mean we have to examine the apparent bias in the press's lack of eagerness to cover the alien baby and bigfoot stories, too?

Edwards was the story, not the ENQUIRER!?!?!?!. The ENQUIRER!?!?!?! is garbage, but that only proves the point that the MSM is giving Edwards a bye. Are you saying that the Edwards story is patently false merely because the ENQUIRER!?!?!?! wrote about the story?

The Enquirer is shit. Craig was ARRESTED by a cop. There's plenty of difference. For one thing, the cop was proven in Court. As it stands, there's no reason to believe a word the Enquirer says.

"... that only proves the point that the MSM is giving Edwards a bye."

Does it prove, then, that the MSM is also giving Britney Spears' mom a bye by not leading the evening news with her "tragic secret", or is Lisa Marie getting a bye because I'm not hearing about her "secret shame" (just a couple of other headlines I see going to the Enquirer online site)?

DrLEM:

"... that only proves the point that the MSM is giving Edwards a bye."

Does it prove, then, that the MSM is also giving Britney Spears' mom a bye by not leading the evening news with her "tragic secret", or is Lisa Marie getting a bye because I'm not hearing about her "secret shame" (just a couple of other headlines I see going to the Enquirer online site)?

No. Edwards is more relevant than Britney Spears's mom and Lisa Marie. The MSM not reporting on them tends to show their irrelevance. Do you think Edwards is irrelevant?

Though most people's first response to any article by the National Enquirer is, "Yeah right, I'm supposed to believe space aliens have landed", the truth is the Enquirer does NOT do articles like that. In fact, before they do a story, the Enquirer editors pass the idea to lawyers. Every step of the way, lawyers actually play the part of editor. That means, the Enquirer is far more accurate than the NY Times, Washington Post, etc.

The press is currently sitting on two stories- Obama's Kennedyesque sexual conquests (When Scarlett Johansson was caught in emails thru a leak from the Clinton faction the press backed away just as they have on jokes, etc), and Edwards other secret family.

It will be interesting to see how long Obama's teflon lasts until one major paper decides to follow the story.

A hipocrit is someone that says one thing, yet does another.

If you are married and it's not the 70's, then you have effectively said "I'm FOR monogomy". If you asked Edwards last week "Do you agree with people that cheat on their spouse" he would have given an unwaivering "I don't agree with infidelity".Thus, he's not practicing what he preaches, unless, of course, you can find some quotes from him advocating open marriages.

The total crap here is that NYT ran a huge story on McCain having an affair with nary a shred of evidence. Here we have several witnesses, and the NYT won't dare touch this.

And let's not forget the Nat Enq broke the Lewinski and OJ stories.

When the National Enquirer ran a story two weeks ago about Dubya and Laura divoricing, did Slate (or anyone else) give it credibility?

Hell, if I had Enquirer goons chasing me, I'd duck into a bathroom for fifteen minutes, too.

This story is crap.

That's why the legacy media isn't covering it.

Oh, yeah, lawyers definitely make the Enquirer more accurate. The laywers only have to make sure that they won't get sued. And face it, Hillary suing the Enquirer for saying she's having an affair with Batboy will just bring more attention to the scurrilous reporting. Just like W and Laura won't sue them for reporting that he's back to using alcohol and cocaine and they're about to split...