Or human:
http://www.deusexmalcontent.com/2008/08/all-fall-down.html

Your headline is disingenuous. While I agree those are important questions and its quite possible the wh was involved its meer speculation at this point and incendiary to post the title that way.

Not hard to believe at all!

http://harpers.org/archive/2007/10/hbc-90001405

The title is misleading and typical of tabloid journalism of the National Enquire ilk.

The body of this article is empty and speculative. It is suggestive and uninformative.

Moreover, the following 2 questions were answered, though not entirely, by Arianna Huffington, ABC News and reporters for the National Enquire.

1. Who leaked the affair to the Enquirer
4. Why did Edwards break his silence now?

The WH doesn't care about John Edwards - he's a proven electoral failure in his own right.

The better explanation is that The Enquirer had something to prove - they reported on Edward's affair last year and nobody believed them. They've probably trailed the woman looking for the evidence they needed to justify themselves. They suceeded.

The National Enquirer - America's Most Accurate Political Muckraker. What a sad state of affairs - pun intended.

jezreel,
The answer to number one coming from the Enquirer itself seems less than clear... so I wouldn't say it has been answered.
"Why' the tip was credible begs more detail.

Wolf Blitzer: What got you guys going in this direction to begin with?

David Perel: We received what we thought was a credible tip, Wolf, and we started investigating it. A lot of times when we go down this road and the story turns out not to be true, we abandon it. But the more we dug in, the more information The Enquirer uncovered that was standing up, we were able to prove that, indeed, John Edwards had a sexual affair with Rielle Hunter. We first did the story in October without naming her and then we came back with a much tougher story in December 2007, where we not only named her, but we photographed her pregnant.

I know TMPC isn't technically news, but don't you think it's a little unfair to give a diary a headline that makes it sounds like a statement, when in fact it's a series of speculations?

It certainly wouldn't surprise me to discover that the White House was behind the NE Edwards story, but afaik there is not a shred of evidence showing it.