Edwards' silence on tabloid claims might cost him his DNC role.

[Occam Bandage]

RALEIGH, N.C. — Former Sen. John Edwards has a deadline to save his spot on the national stage. With two weeks to go before their national convention, a number of Democrats are saying that Edwards needs to publicly address National Enquirer stories that have alleged he had an affair with a campaign worker and fathered her baby.

If Edwards fails to clear up the story in short order, he risks party officials deciding not to have him speak or, if they do, creating a distraction from a week focused on Barack Obama accepting the nomination. "If there is not an explanation that’s satisfactory, acceptable and meets high moral standards, the answer is 'no,' he would not be a prime candidate to make a major address to the convention," said Don Fowler, a former Democratic National Committee chair.

Democrats gather in Denver on Aug. 25 and Edwards, as the 2004 vice presidential nominee and a presidential candidate who won delegates this year, ordinarily would be locked in as a speaker. "He absolutely does have to (resolve it). If it's not true, he has to issue a stronger denial," said Gary Pearce, the Democratic strategist who ran Edwards’ 1998 Senate race. "It's a very damaging thing. The big media has tried to be responsible and handle this with kid gloves, but it's clearly getting ready to bust out. If it's not true, he's got to stand up and say, 'This is not true. That is not my child and I'm going to take legal action against the people who are spreading these lies.' It's not enough to say, 'That’s tabloid trash,' " Pearce said.

An appearance at the convention would only highlight the unresolved story, said Chris Lehane, a Democratic consultant and former aide to then-Vice President Al Gore. A convention speaking appearance could become the moment that drives news media coverage of the alleged affair to explode.

"You want to address these issues long before you get to that point," Lehane said. "Otherwise people who haven’t written about it before, now start writing about it." Edwards' decision not to take questions about the alleged affair has allowed doubts to linger and political bloggers to speculate. The National Enquirer has reported that he fathered a child with a former campaign worker and met with her in a Beverly Hills hotel last month. He made no response to the National Enquirer’s posting on Wednesday of what it said was a photo of Edwards and his illegitimate child. Two weeks ago, after the National Enquirer ran the story about the hotel liaison, he dismissed a reporter’s question in Houston and used the "tabloid trash" line.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/46637.html

I honestly don't have any clue whether this story is true or not, and it doesn't really matter. He's not our nominee (thank God, for unrelated reasons), and so his personal life isn't that important. His silence on the story is sort of understandable; he's been lucky enough that the MSM hasn't covered it at all, and a PR war between him and the Enquirer might attract some coverage. However, if he learned anything from 2004, it should have been that rumors need to be addressed head-on, not ignored; left on their own, they will grow until they bite you in the ass. If the story is true, Edwards should admit it, say it's his own fucking business, and shift his career to philanthropy for a while. If it's false, he should loudly, unconditionally, and angrily deny it, and get the mother and true father to stand up on the same podium with him and do the same.

I don't really care for Edwards, but it's frustrating as hell to watch yet another Democrat fuck around aimlessly while rumors grow into scandals into news stories. He needs to get on the ball here.

[dkf]

1. He should volunteer for a DNA test and get this over with.

[Colobo]

4. Maury Povich can take care of that.

:)

[dkf]

9. Or Jerry Springer could do a special...

[TwilightGardener]

2. I agree--if he's guilty of screwing around on his wife, he won't be the first

guy ever to get caught doing that. It's not the end of the world to admit you fucked up--and it's between him and Elizabeth. If he's NOT guilty, then he should openly and forcefully deny the rumors, and threaten to sue for libel.

[marylanddem]

3. He should either confess or sue.

[marylanddem]

5. Deleted - dupe

[SuperTrouper]

6. His personal life should not interfere with his assignment at the Convention

he is a Democratic leader and we should respect his privacy. He only needs to answer to Elizabeth and nobody else. I would let him speak at the Convention; he is a great voice for our Party.

[Colobo]

7. When you are in politics, very little is personal.

[SuperTrouper]

13. I know but his role in the Convention should not be diminished

by any pecadillos that he may have. Look at teddy, his personal life is not saintly and still has been a very effective and dominant leader in our party and the nation.

[Occam Bandage]

14. His role in the Convention should indeed be diminished if the coverage it will garner

is likely to be negative and distracting. If the media is talking about who he's fucking instead of how Obama will help the working class, then his speech would not be helpful to the DNC. He needs to put this story to rest now, whether by confirming or denying it.

[SuperTrouper]

16. If he denies it, this story will not die anyway and if he confirms it then

the coverage will be more intense about his infidelity...no easy way out of this rumor short of a DNA or suing the tabloid.

[Occam Bandage]

19. If the story is false, he should sue. The media are not going to cover a story with a libel lawsuit.

[CTyankee]

39. He's already denied it -- strongly. I don't know why folks at DU are uninformed.

n/t

[snooper2]

40. So Larry Craig and Mark Foley

should get the respect they deserve and privacy and be keynote speakers for McWobble?


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[karynnj]

41. Actually Teddy's personal life likely cost him being President.

Kennedy likely would have run in 1976 and would likely have beat Carter then.

That said, Edwards is no Ted Kennedy. Whatever you think of his personal life, he has led a wing of the Democratic party and has written a huge percent of liberal legislation in the last 40 years. Edwards has almost no Senate accomplishments and won exactly 2 primaries in 2 Presidential elections.

He is a Democratic voice, but much of his popularity came from a perception of who he is as a person. That is why he has support even though his 2004 and 2008 runs and the man that he was in the Senate are all very different. If this is true, it might shake the faith of many supporters.

As to the convention, if he says nothing or if he confirms it, I suspect that he will still get a speech - at least in 2004, Kerry gave everyone who was a competitor a speech - because it would be a story if he wasn't there. I would assume that no matter what there are others that are deservingly more likely to be prominent supporting Obama - including HRC, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy (on tape), and whoever is the VP.

[avaistheone1]

8. I am curious why is DU entertaining tabloid rumors re Edwards when it has handled Obama differently

in reference to tabloid rumors of Obama having a sexual relationship and sharing crack cocaine with Larry Sinclair?

[thewiseguy]

10. What?

[Colobo]

11. Larry Sinclair has been proven to be a disgraceful person and a liar.

[avaistheone1]

15. and so has the National Enquirer.

They are trash journalism.

[Occam Bandage]

12. Read the article. This is not a question of Democratic Underground.

This is not some toothless meth fiend on YouTube failing poly exams; this is DNC advisors telling the press that Edwards might lose his speaking role if he doesn't address this.

[scheming daemons]

37. Larry Sinclair failed multiple lie detector tests. That makes it a dead story.

[onehandle]

17. And certain Edwards haters continue to trash Edwards long after the primaries.

Nice.

[scheming daemons]

38. I didn't know there was such a thing as an "Edwards Hater" in DU? Seriously....

Even those that supported other candidates seem to like John and Elizabeth.

[onehandle]

50. Yes there are.

There are those who still hate him for daring to run against Obama.

Have I said too much?

[Dr.Phool]

47. It also made this week's "The Nation". magazine.

I just posted it in this forum. And for the record, I've always been an Edwards supporter, and this is the first I've heard about it.

I'd still like to see him as Attorney General.

[jazzjunkysue]

18. If the DNC is really insisting, they're the fools. He's doing the right thing.

Ignore. Ignore. Ignore.

[Occam Bandage]

20. Ignoring is not "the right thing," it's the dumb thing. It's what Kerry/Edwards did in 2004.

It's what cost Kerry/Edwards the White House in 2004. Rumors need to be attacked, not left to fester.

[avaistheone1]

23. Drudge created a rumo and a lier that Kerry was having an affair

Kerry ignored it, and it was not a factor in Kerry losing that election.

I dont think we should grace tabloid rumors as facts that need to be addressed, otherwise the neocons are going to be running our campaign.

[karynnj]

33. But Kerry unequivicably denied it

as did the woman. There was nothing at all behind it. The woman wrote a long article in New York Magazine that detailed the nightmare it was She credited Kerry with acting swiftly to protect her as well as himself. In Shrum's book they detail how the campaign dealt with it - after Shrum privately asked the Senator who assured him that it was untrue.

In fairness to Edwards, this is harder because he does not have a spokesman (I don't think) or a position to speak from where he can control things.

[beachmom]

35. Actually he does have a press person, who is not responding to e-mails.

From the McClatchy story linked above:

His designated staffer for press contacts has not responded to e-mail requests for an interview.

No one answered a reporter who rang a buzzer at the gate of Edwards' Orange County home on Wednesday.

Friends and former staffers refuse to comment now, though they helped Edwards last fall by dismissing an October story in the Enquirer of a sexual relationship between Edwards and a campaign videographer when it initially broke.

"Sorry cannot help you on this one," wrote Jennifer Palmieri, a former top Edwards aide, in an e-mail Wednesday.

For anyone interested, here is that story about the de-bunked "intern affair":

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/politics/national/features/9221/

The Kerry campaign was deeply involved in dispelling the rumors, and they succeeded.

[beachmom]

34. Kerry did NOT ignore it. He and the young lady named KILLED the story.

Because it wasn't true. It died, because there was nothing to it. Eventually, even Drudge admitted he got it wrong.

Edwards thought he had the story killed when one of his aids came forward to say he was the father; however, the "hotel" story has NOT been responded to.

[jazzjunkysue]

24. Edwards isn't running. He doesn't need to speak at the convention.

And he won't because he's dedicated to his wife and family, not the DNC.

This is tabloid BS and if you think you can stop it by responding to it, you don't understand.

If he takes the bait, they'll have a story a week about him.

You don't substantiate rumors, especially if youre not running for anything.

[karynnj]

43. Not true

Edwards has not really responded to this at all - other than to say it's in a trashy tabloid - which is true.

On the swiftboats, what Kerry had done to have already provided more than enough ammunition to use for people to defend him before the August attack even occurred - and it was in Democrats vested interest to do so. I think that there was a sense -everywhere that this was so unbelievable that nothing needed to be done. The Navy awarded those medals - he didn't steal them or make them up.

The MSM did not do his its job. In reality the media condoned character assassination of Senator Kerry. Then there was a second swiftboating after the narrow election loss by people with vested interests, either because they did not live up to their journalistic standards or they supported someone else in 2008. The problem was that Kerry could not get his response out through the mass media - his message was heavily filtered.

The campaign's immediate reaction to the August attack was to put out 36 pages listing lies and discrepancies in the book. That was done within ONE DAY of the book's emergence in August. This should have been sufficient to spike their attack. How many lies are people usually allowed when they are disputing the official record, offering nothing - not one Telex, photo, or record sent upward discussing Kerry as the problem portrayed in the book - as proof. They also later proved the links to Bush - in funding, lawyers, and in one case the B/C people were caught passing it out. In addition, Kerry surrogates including some of his crew, Rassman and Cleland countered it.

That was far more proof countering the liars than the Clinton machine ever put out on anything. The problem was that it went to the media and they refused to play the role of evaluating who was telling the truth - the Washington Post's editor even saying they wouldn't. The broadcast media was worse. Would Obama have done as well if the networks and cable TV failed to give coverage to his speech on race in the furor over Reverand Wright? We need to be prepared to help Obama, if the media turn back to 2004 mode now that we are in the general election.

It wasn't that we had no ammunition to use. There was an abundance of proof - far more than would be typically available as they hit against a well documented official record. Even before the August re-emergence, the Kerry campaign had already provided the media with more than enough backup for them to reject the August attack out of hand.

It should also be mentioned that it was not Kerry's accounts they disputed, it was the NAVY's official record. Backing the NAVY account over the SBVT, Kerry had the following:

he had 120 pages of naval records - spanning the entire interval with glowing fitness reports - all given to the media and on his web site from April on. That alone should have been enough.

He had every man on his boat for every medal earned 100% behind him. That alone should have been enough.

He had the Nixon administration on tape (that they thought would never be public) saying he was both a genuine war hero and clean, but for political reasons should be destroyed. (SBVT O'Neil was one of those tasked to destroy Kerry in 1971.) That alone should have been enough.

He also was given a plum assignment in Brooklyn as an aide to a rear admiral. From the naval records, this required a higher security clearance - clearly his "employers" of the last 3 years (many SBVT) had to attest to his good character. That's just standard. That alone should have been enough.

The then secretary of the Navy (John Warner) said he personally had reviewed the Silver Star Award. That alone should have been enough.

Saying Kerry did not fight back simply swiftboats him again - compare this list of proof to Carville & Co response on Clinton's Flowers or draft problems - this is far more comprehensive and completely refutes the charges. The Clinton responses in these two instances did not completely refute the charges - in fact, after changing his story a few times in each case - conceding that earlier statements were not completely true - parts of the charges were conceded. The difference was that in 1992 - even in the primary - Clinton was given breaks by a media that wanted him to win. The fact is that we KNEW in those two cases that he was willing to dissemble and scapegoat others when he was called on his actions - two things that later hurt his Presidency.

In any previous election, calmly and professionally countering lies by disproving them would have been the obvious preferred first step. It is only when there is no open and shut case (as there is here) that the candidate would try anything different.When this didn't work, Kerry did speak to the issue - and he did so before the Firefighters as soon as it was appear that the attack was beginning to hurt him. Many here - all political junkies didn't here this. Why? The media that gave a huge amount of free time to people they had to know were lying didn't think that it was important to give the Democratic nominees response air time. Now, it was - I think less than 5 minutes long - so there is no excuse. http://www.kerryvision.net/2007/08/jk_the_fire_fighters.html
click on little photo of the Senator.)

In 2004, there were no You tubes - if there were, getting this out could have been done. I hope the media will play fairer - but if they don't, we need to help Obama.

Now, Edwards is not in a campaign, Kerry was - but the fact is that Kerry did a huge amount to dispute the lies, Edwards very little.

[blm]

44. Baloney - Kerry knocked down the 'affair' rumor immediately. He also knocked down swifts' lies

immediately and forcefully and the corpmedia refused to broadcast that defense and especially the speech he made attacking the swifts and challenging Bush to stop hiding behind the swifts and publicly debate Kerry on their service records.

Furthering the corpmedia lie that the swifts were never answered covers up for the corporate media's complicity. Don't do it. There is plenty of evidence in the DU Research Forum that details the great extent of Kerry's counters to the swifts. Further the TRUTH, not the lie.

[PresidentObama]

21. National Enquirer said Obama was an Iranian plant. Should we not include him either?

:P

My point is National Enquirer is trash, and a pack of lies. He shouldn't lose his role over a story with sketchy evidence (those photoshop looking pictres) and no quotes from hotel guests who supposedly saw the whole thing.

[Occam Bandage]

22. You'll note that Obama attacks bullshit rumors head on. Politics isn't a game of "it should be X,"

it's a game of "it isn't X and so we need to Y."

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. McClatchy = crap

and the Charlotte Observer has had it in for Edwards for years.

[yodermon]

31. I agree that the observer has had it in for Edwards

but McClatchy (knight-ridder) has actually managed to be critical of the * admin over the years.

[karynnj]

45. McClatchy was Knight Ridder and it was by far the best

in reporting what was really happening in 2004 and before that in the runup to the war. (It was Knight/Ridder then). I am not familiar with the Charlotte paper - and they likely had much on Edwards that did not come from the chain. (I assume you are from NC given the name.)

[blm]

49. Actually, the top political reporter at the Observer has a great relationship w/Edwards

and for quite some time, too.

[Mythsaje]

26. And on that note,

maybe Elvis should also respond to the countless Enquirer stories regarding his continued existence on the mortal coil.

It's the Enquirer for fuck's sake. If they print anything true, it's entirely by accident.

[mtnester]

27. I myself would send Batboy out to do a press conference denying the whole thing

May I also say....








Unfuckingbelievable. All can do is sit here and shake my head. :o

[cliffordu]

36. ROFL. And, yes, it is unfuckingbelievable.

[JaneQPublic]

28. Here's the solution: Have Elizabeth speak FOR John at the convention (nt)

[karynnj]

46. Nice solution.

[truebrit71]

29. Why doesn't he just sue the ever-loving shit out of them?

...if it's untrue of course...

Unfortunately he needs to step up and put this to rest..

I mean it may very well be the case that he IS the father of the child, has confessed as such to Elizabeth who has forgiven him, and they are moving on...

Ordinarily fine and dandy, but NOT when you are in public life...

He has to say something to end the speculation...

[Mudoria]

30. I liked John Edwards even though I thought he was

only average as my Senator and used the position only to run for the Presidency. On the other hand, I love and admire Elizabeth Edwards. If it's true he's cheated on her and fathered this child I have lost all respect for him and hope I neither see nor hear him speak again.

[beachmom]

32. Yup. Especially since he went on and on how HE would fight back.

I have seen tabloid stories die in their tracks when dealt with quickly and effectively. This one has not been killed, and part of it is due to Edwards himself not responding:

"You want to address these issues long before you get to that point," Lehane said. "Otherwise people who haven’t written about it before, now start writing about it." Edwards' decision not to take questions about the alleged affair has allowed doubts to linger and political bloggers to speculate. The National Enquirer has reported that he fathered a child with a former campaign worker and met with her in a Beverly Hills hotel last month. He made no response to the National Enquirer’s posting on Wednesday of what it said was a photo of Edwards and his illegitimate child. Two weeks ago, after the National Enquirer ran the story about the hotel liaison, he dismissed a reporter’s question in Houston and used the "tabloid trash" line.

He brushed off a McClatchy reporter in Washington last week: "Can't do it now, I'm sorry."

His designated staffer for press contacts has not responded to e-mail requests for an interview.

A lot of people here speculated that the photo was photoshopped or that it was him with one of his own babies a long while back. Well, if that is so, then all he has to do is issue a statement of that with the evidence. And before anyone brings it up, this is NOT like the Larry Sinclair story, where he proved to be such a non-credible witness, that everyone, save a few crazies, dismissed it at hand.

[Eurobabe]

42. Wow, these hit pieces are falling out of the sky lately....

Biden, Edwards -- who's next??

:eyes: :eyes:

[ReadTomPaine]

48. He's not the nominee and he doesn't hold any public office. False or not, it would distract...

in a negative sense from the current presidential race. The race will be over soon, and he can address this then, if it's still an issue.

This is perfect example of the GOP's political machinery culling strong democrats before they become a threat, btw. They don't want to see him nominated for anything like AG or similar.

[Occam Bandage]

51. Attention everyone who disagreed with me on this:

Fail.