Mickey derides the notion that Team Hillary planted the National Enquirer's "story" about John Edwards' love child. First, he had heard it before on the non-planted rumor mill, and secondly, Hillary needs to Keep Edwards Alive because she can not finish on top in a two-way with Obama.
Let me toss in a third reason this can't (or anyway, shouldn't) have come from Hilary's team - if, I say IF this story takes off the press will treat us to several weeks of remembrances of scandals past and the varied responses thereto. Will it really help Hillary for the press to reprise her "Pain in our marriage" appearance on 60 Minutes with Bill in 1992? Will it help her for the press to reprise her "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" response in 1998? Will a national conversation about the implications of marital infidelity really give her campaign a boost?
C'mon - Obama is the winner if this story finds legs. Doesn't mean he planted it, though.
SECOND THOUGHTS: You want to say that Hillary as a victim has always polled well, and that tales of infidelity fits nicely with her new likability push in a way it would not have fit with her previous "strong and experienced" push? Hmm... I don't love it, but I don't hate it.
THIRD THOUGHTS: Didn't we just learn through leaks that Bill Clinton and Ron Burkle (prospective owner of the National Enquirer) were no longer best buds? Boy, that was lucky timing! Hmm, I see I am in the Captain's wake on this connection.
A SIMPLER VIEW: Burkle is a billionaire businessman who doesn't like Edwards' anti-business populism. Even if this story is hard luck for Hillary, its worse luck for Edwards, who can counterattack with a "Vast Moneyed Interests Conspiracy" speech. Sorry, John, "powerful forces" is taken.
Wow. The scandal that was being bandied about about a month ago. I am trying to remember the details. When I have a minute, which won't be anytime soon, I'll search our archives, because I know Clarice and I talked about it.
Just wow.
Posted by: Sue | December 19, 2007 at 09:31 AM
"Hmm... I don't love it, but I don't hate it."
Hmmmm.....going out on a limb again, eh?
Posted by: Semanticleo | December 19, 2007 at 09:37 AM
It may well be that Hill had nothing to do with planting this rumor, but under all the circumstances no one will believe her denials. The Lord works in mysterious ways...(I think Mickey is right BTW. Having read thru all the stuff about it a couple of months ago, it does appear that the Edwards' staff's flustered and odd responses to a reporter doing a story on internet campaigning, whetted his appetite for more about this gal and the rest, as they say, is history.)
Posted by: clarice | December 19, 2007 at 09:46 AM
And, finally, maybe the Enquirer just had a story that met their standards (or did until Edwards lawyers called) that would sell a bunch of newspapers.
Seriously, though, would you mess with one of the best trial lawyers around unless you had the goods? If the Enquirer is too thinly sourced, this could be the most expensive mistake they ever made. Edwards has the money to persue them throught the courts, and, if he is knocked out of the Presidential race, has little reason not to do so.
If the Enquirer jumped the gun, we might see an Enquirer retraction soon. If we do, woe to the well-known bloggers who don't prominently post the retracton.
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | December 19, 2007 at 10:13 AM
Simplest theory; this story has a truth which will manifest itself, so the story is only valuable pre selfmanifestation.
========================
Posted by: kim | December 19, 2007 at 10:16 AM
I think this is the story that the LA Times had but wouldn't use it. Clarice, do you remember who the blogger was that had that story?
Posted by: Sue | December 19, 2007 at 10:24 AM
AM, Edwards is a public figure and a defamation suit by him would be hard to win. All the NE would have to do is establish they had the emails/letters etc. Ms Irelle might have a better claim but not if she told her friends Edwards was the father.
Wms and Connolly (Edward Bennett Williams old firm) vets every word in the NE for potential libel.
That doesn't mean the story is true when it's published there, only that the attys are sure no defamation case can be made as a result of what they published.
Posted by: clarice | December 19, 2007 at 10:31 AM
Sue, I think if you track back at Kaus' from yesterday's post, you'll find it.Wonkette and Huff Post also carried the story early on.
Posted by: clarice | December 19, 2007 at 10:32 AM
But public figures do win against the Enquirer:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5198208.stm
http://www.rcfp.org/news/2003/0711condit.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20031212135711/http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,485033665,00.html
Posted by: Appalled Moderate | December 19, 2007 at 10:50 AM
OT, but here's the latest Petraeus Report. Bad news for the likes of Harry Reid.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | December 19, 2007 at 10:53 AM
Responding to ruchard from another thread because I cannot post it there-----
Hmmm.
It shows you how nice it is to have lots of money--stashing the evidence in Kenya behind a walled compound beats placing it in Chapel Hill.
Sure AM--wasn't that Condit's wife in one of those and she didn't meet the definition.
In aany event that is a small number considering they publish every week and most stories if untrue would be a possible basis for suit.
Posted by: the poster formerly known as c | December 19, 2007 at 10:54 AM
posted this on the wrong thread so I'm posting it here as well-
My take on the Enquirer story, and Kaus's assertion that it isn't a campaign, seems to put it into the Dick Morris camp. Drudge featured it the day before the anniversary of the House impeachment vote [Dec 19]. It would be the kind of operation that Dick Morris would relish as he sandbags Edwards and dirties up the Red Witch. Bill Clinton might even approve.
Posted by: RichatUF | December 19, 2007 at 10:56 AM
I dislike that unctuous plaintiffs' lawyer so much that I hope the story gets huge legs.
DNA can settle the matter conclusively, if the woman ever surfaces.
Posted by: Other Tom | December 19, 2007 at 11:07 AM
clarice-
re other thread:
I don't recall all the contours. Here is an index. Whatever- it looks like it was the Sun and Daily News that was pushing it.
I was thinking back to the campaign in 04 and remember at the end of one of the debates. The debate was over and Pres. Bush and Sen. Kerry shook hands and their families came on stage. I remember when Kerry was shaking Jenna Bush's hand it almost looked like he grabbed her ass or at least tried-seriously. Jenna had this shocked expression and looked like she wanted to sock him one. Then the cameras quickly cut to the talking heads and not a peep about the whole incident.
Posted by: RichatUF | December 19, 2007 at 11:12 AM
I remember reports of Teresa flying over on her privte plane to talk to the Kenya girl.
Posted by: the poster formerly known as c | December 19, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Ron Rosenbaum was the guy, Sue. But he explicitly denied it was "the Edwards rumor" (both in the story and in the comments).
One could speculate that the "Edwards love child" could be differentiated from the "Edwards affair," but that seems like a stretch to me. I think Rosenbaum was talking about Hillary/Huma.
Posted by: Porchlight | December 19, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Sue-
The thread you are looking for archives
Posted by: RichatUF | December 19, 2007 at 11:19 AM
This story is as old as politics itself. It starts innocently enough, a candidate thinks he's just getting a Lewinsky, but some young seductress takes advantage of him.
You really have to feel sorry for a guy who finds himself in this kind of situation through no fault of his own.
Posted by: MikeS | December 19, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Rich,
Thanks. I didn't think Kaus was the person who had the story but the name Ron Rosenbaum would not come to me. http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/ronrosenbaum/2007/10/29/shocking_inside_dc_scandal_rum.php>Shocking Inside DC Scandal
I guessed Bill. Even though Mr. Rosenbaum says it is not "the" Edwards story (the one about a mistress) it doesn't mean it wasn't "this" story.
Posted by: Sue | December 19, 2007 at 11:52 AM
"You really have to feel sorry for a guy who finds himself in this kind of situation through no fault of his own."
MikeS,
That's funny right there, i don't care who you are.
Posted by: Tom from LA | December 19, 2007 at 12:54 PM
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/john_edwards_love_child/celebrity/64426>Here is the current Enquirer story. Pretty interesting, if you like scandals (and I do!)
" "My video production company was hired by the Edwards camp on a six-month contract, which we completed Dec. 31, 2006. When working for the Edwards camp, my conduct as well as the conduct of my entire team was completely professional."
But what the rest of the press didn't know is that when Rielle made that claim, she was pregnant, hiding it and had told her confidante it was Edwards' baby.
That's also when it was decided Rielle would relocate to North Carolina, said the source.
The ENQUIRER has confirmed that Young placed Rielle in a rental home in the Governors Club, the same gated community where he lives in a multimillion-dollar home with his wife Cheri and their young children. That home is owned by an Edwards' backer and is less than five miles from Edwards' national campaign headquarters in Chapel Hill, N.C."
Posted by: MayBee | December 19, 2007 at 01:00 PM
Lefties besides themselves over suspicious fire in old building
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/19/10116/133/875/424241
Posted by: secrettopk9 | December 19, 2007 at 04:00 PM
In the hearts and minds of those, who don't believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, there is the conviction that this must have come from Hiliary, Obama or (even) Edwards because there are no individuals in this country or planet that act without being instructed to do so.
The rest of us are free to believe in a million other scenarios.
Posted by: Neo | December 20, 2007 at 12:02 AM
Althouse is getting the dickens from some of her leftward leaning regulars for deigning to even link the story.
Even some (ridiculous) threats claiming she is subject to a libel suit.
She is unfazed, as one would expect.
Could there be fire as well as smoke?
There was at the Exec Office Bldg, after all.
Posted by: vnjagvet | December 20, 2007 at 02:19 AM
A fellw called Altman, another of the Clinon cronies, is also something to do with the Enquirer.
Posted by: davod | December 20, 2007 at 08:53 AM
Sorry for the spelling mistakes.
A fellow called Altman, another of the Clinton cronies, is also something to do with the Enquirer.
Posted by: davod | December 20, 2007 at 08:56 AM