I made the horrific mistake of reading Mickey Kaus's blog today... caught up on a week of his goat-fuckingly giddy reporting of the National Enquirer's reporting that Edwards visited the former campaign aide who Kaus is certain fathered Edward's bastard child.
I won't link. It's all easy enough to find from the Slate homepage. In Kaus' posts there are links to other so-called columnists and bloggers pushing the tale.
Most of the links are links to other columnists seeing their greatest dreams fulfilled, Clinton references, and complaints that the mainstream media isn't using the unimpeachable Enquirer as source material to launch a thousand scandal articles. Kos noted a few days back taht the MSM similarly didn't go nutso about the Bush/Drinking stories the supermarket tabloids push with regularity. Atrios makes cutting remarks to rumors of Kaus fucking goats -- proof of which is sourced about as well as Kaus' Edwards rumors
But that notwithstanding, I don't know how to guage this story. The recent rumors sound strange, and if true are very suspicious. (Do I sum them up here? Might as well. Basically, they say there are witnesses, journalists, who confronted Edwards when he visited an aide who previous was said to have been pregnant and given birth to a child with another campaign aide. Except it was 2 in the morning, at the Beverly Hilton or something, and when the afore-mentioned journalists confronted Edwards, he ran and hid in a bathroom.)
Kaus' Slate peer Jack Schafer did a piece on the media's ignoring of the story -- again, not mentioning all the other stories that go ignored in the Enquirer, but focusing on Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson and a couple other once-in-a-decade cases of the Enquirer getting sex scandals right. A few other columnists have jumped on the bandwagon, but near as I can tell, there's been no coverage by consistantly reputable media.
And its worth noting that pictures from the Beverly Hills hide-out were supposedly promised this weekend, and much to Kaus' consertnation are nowhere to be found.
But I'm curious -- not whether its true, although if anyone has thoughts on that, that's interesting too. Personally, I think we'll know that soon enough. And I hope Edwards' litigational skills are sharp as ever if its not. But my curiosity is for what people here think about it. Kaus and Schafer find conspiracy in the silence, or lament the media's love for "Saint Elizabeth" or comment that the media is waiting to see if Edwards is a pick for veep or something. I'm hoping the silence is good taste among the media.
But I'm not one for ignoring what the Right Wing is peddling. This seems a rare case of restraint by some, and overreach by others. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Permalink :: 32 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
