« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Birth certificate for alleged Edwards' "love child" lists no father
A story not reported here yet is the one by McClatchy Newspapers revealing that the birth certificate belonging to Rielle Hunter's son, who has been said to be John Edwards' and Hunter's love child, lists no one as the child's father.
Slate Magazine's Mickey Kaus complained today that the media is seeking to protect Elizabeth Edwards--who has cancer--from the devastating news that would be the confirmation of the National Enquirer story, in which the magazine claimed to have caught John Edwards in a Beverly Hills hotel with Hunter.
A security guard on duty at the time of the alleged story confirmed having protected a scared Edwards from curious reporters.
What do you guys think? Should the major media outlets pursue an investigation of the matter?
Comments (21)
What is this your 4-5 blog on this topic?
If true it probably deserves to be a story given Edwards did run for President this year though, and at one time was considered to be on Obama's VP list. I'd say he's a private citizen, but if this was Guiliani, Mitt or Huckabee it would probably be news (IF TRUE).
August 5, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will post 1,000,000 blog posts on the story if I have to, and if I want to. Nothing wrong with it. Up there, on this page, it says "my blog."
This is my blog. You have one too. There, you can post a billion stories about whatever you wish.
If the mainstream media covers it, I will probably feel compelled not to write too many.
August 5, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's my party and I'll lie if I want to, lie if I want to, lie if I want to.
You would lie, too, if you hadn't a clue.
August 5, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice.
August 6, 2008 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Lists no father"! Sounds like another Virgin birth.
Tell all your wacko fundy friends that Jesus has returned.
August 5, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't that unusual with unmarried parents:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/100/story/100081.html
August 5, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Kansas City Star TV blogger Aaron Barnhart also wondered: What took so long?
http://blogs.kansascity.com/tvbarn/2008/07/the-john-edward.html
August 5, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you tell us in two or three simple declarative sentences why this matters so much to you?
August 5, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
This would probably get more ink/bytes if Edwards were (a) a Veep short-lister, or (b) more visible period.
I agree that it is a story because of Edwards' political stature. Certainly, there's room to dig more, but I do wonder why Mickey Kaus would complain, rather than do some research and get the story he alleges is there.
August 5, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
In short, unless new facts emerge indicating that Andrew Young is not the father, there is NO story here. I say this as a lifelong journalist. That a campaign staffer of Edwards fathered a child is not big news. The couple are entitled to private life as they choose to live it. Edwards, apparently, was not the father. I'm sure the Enquirer will do what it can to sell papers.
August 5, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't think it should matter. People stray from their marriage vows. Sometimes a child results. It happens so much more often than people care to admit. I wish americans were more grown up about this. But they are not. As long as Edwards is in public life he must be thoroughly vetted. This can't be investigated after Edwards get a cabinet post or some other position in government. It would be too damaging to the party or president who appointed him.
There is more than enough information to make anyone suspicious. Journalists shouldn't take anyone's word for anything. A quality journalist would look at any situation like this and deduce that something is likely being hidden. He or she would not trust but seek to find the facts, the truth. Claiming to be a journalist does not give your opinions greater validity. Your answer leads me to question that claim or at the least that your partisan feelings are affecting your judgement.
August 6, 2008 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a good point. Real journalists seem to be reporting the fact that something is being reported, without getting into the "truth" of the situation right now. They are also finding a story in whether they should be reporting the details of the story or not.
August 6, 2008 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your confidence in the Enquirer story makes me question your sanity. As an actual journalist rather than a critic, neither am I motivated to investigate or repeat claims of alien abductions or Christ's reincarnation in a toaster pastry. To each his own.
August 6, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
9/11 Commission recommendations unfulfilled
Record Surplus to Record Deficit
Bridge to Nowhere
Pat Tillman & Jessica Lynch
No Body Armor for the troops
War on the Middle Class
Stem Cell Research
Unwarranted Phone Taps
Unprecedented Powers
Vice Presidential Energy Task Force
Enron
Anwar Pipeline
Global Warming
Katrina
Walter Reed Hospital
Bush
You're with us or against us
Mission Accomplished
Cheney
Greeted as liberators
Condi
Mushroom Cloud
Rumsfeld
Old Europe
Scooter Libby
CIA Leak
Habeas Corpus
Eminent Domain
Ahmad Chalabi
Alberto Gonzales
Illegal Immigration
Osama Bin Laden
Halliburton
Four dollars a gallon
Abramoff
FEMA
Brownie
Chertoff
Duke Cunningham
Axis of Evil
Mark Foley
Bomb Bomb Iran
Tom Delay
Abu Ghraib
Guantanamo
Jeff Gannon
John Bolton
Torture
Social Security
Dead Enders
Cut and Run
Karl Rove
Swiftboaters
George Tenet
Terri Schiavo
Monica Goodling
4133 US Killed in Iraq
100 Years in Iraq
Etcetera, etc, etc...
Perhaps the major media outlets should pursue investigations some other things first.
August 5, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
What exactly is the news value of John Edwards fathering an illegitmate child?
August 5, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone wants it to be?
August 5, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see the need to knock Edwards down another peg. Losing the 2004 nomination, the 2004 Vice Presidency and the 2008 nomination should be plenty.
August 6, 2008 2:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
This story provides further confirmation of the power of the Left-Wing Liberal Media™. The private peccadillos of every citizen should and will be tracked down by the LWLM™ and splashed across the pages and screens of the LWLM™. Where such misbehavior does not actually exist, it must and shall be manufactured.
August 6, 2008 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
If John Edwards wishes to step back from public life, he has that right, and the public has no right or reason to inquire into the private life of private individuals. If/when he again seeks an elected position or is proposed for a position of high power, such as a Cabinet post, there will certainly be full investigation of this rumor (whether or not it's appropriate, which can be debated). In the meantime, however, there is no rationale for continuous stories about this -- and they would serve no purpose except to make lives miserable.
August 6, 2008 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agree completely.
Funny though, how Democratic (sex) scandals tend to be heterosexual in nature, while Republican ones are 50/50 hetero/homosexual with closeted men who rail against homosexuals (when they aren't meeting them in bathrooms).
August 6, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look, since I know more about Edwards's alleged love child than I care to know, the story must be getting enough coverage.
August 6, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment