National Enquirer, Wonkette, bullshit bucket

Rielle Hunter released the following statement through a spokesperson:

"The innuendoes and lies that have appeared on the internet and in the National Enquirer concerning John Edwards are not true, completely unfounded and ridiculous.

My video production company was hired by the Edwards camp on a 6 month contract, which we completed December 31, 2006.

When working for the Edwards camp, my conduct as well as the conduct of my entire team was completely professional.

This concocted story is just dirty politics and I want no part of it."

Just a total bullshit story.

Tags: goats, Mickey Kaus, Sam Stein, slime (all tags)



right, reminds me of the "Kerry intern"

by desmoinesdem 2007-10-11 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: National Enquirer, Wonkette, bullshit bucket

yeah , i don't know why people react to this tabloid crap.

However I hate to gloat but Clinton is at the 50% mark in another poll.

By the way Hillary surges to the 50% mark in a new fox news poll , obama falls to 18

Even though it is still months before the first vote in a primary election and there is more than a year to go before the general election, many Americans already believe Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States.

More than 4 of 10 voters (44 percent) think another Clinton presidency is inevitable, which is almost four times as many as see Republican Rudy Giuliani winning the White House (12 percent), according to a newly released FOX News poll.

Not only do 61 percent of Democrats believe Clinton will be the next president, but also 25 percent of Republicans and 45 percent of independents.,2933,3012 22,00.html 07_rls_2008_web.pdf

by lori 2007-10-11 12:19PM | 0 recs
Gave you a Rec even

though I'm not sure I agree with the polls (or their results anyway).  Hillary Clinton is fortunate to have you as a supporter.  Your essential decency shines through your comments.

by TomP 2007-10-11 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Gave you a Rec even

Tom -- what a nice thing to say.  Seems like you have essential decency too.

by changehorses08 2007-10-11 05:22PM | 0 recs
And what does this have to do with the diary?

by Pravin 2007-10-11 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: And what does this have to do with the diary?

Nothing !!!

Just thought you would like to know.

I guess not.

by lori 2007-10-11 12:57PM | 0 recs
I know that EVERYTHING in the

entire FUCKING UNIVERSE reflects Hillary's wonderfulness, but this is JUST RIDICULOUS.

by dataguy 2007-10-11 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: National Enquirer, Wonkette, bullshit bucket

Don't forget Mickey Kaus in the bullshit-o-meter.  I don't know why Slate keeps him around.

by MassEyesandEars 2007-10-11 12:21PM | 0 recs
Mickey Kaus is one of the worst

and he hates Democrats who criticize NAFTA, welfare reform, or any of his other pet DLC initiatives.

by desmoinesdem 2007-10-11 12:22PM | 0 recs
Pretty thin charge

But maybe the Edwards people planted it in hopes of drumming up some interest in their campaign.  

by dpANDREWS 2007-10-11 12:21PM | 0 recs
That is ridiculous.

Just silly.  

by TomP 2007-10-11 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: That is ridiculous.

Thank you ,I will echo the same about you.

This whole story just gets my blood boiling because it is right wing bull crap , I heard that vile creature Ann Coulter mention it on Tucker Carlson and I almost smashed the screen.

I don't get it , why do they keep interviewing that woman on T.V. , I don't get it.

To smear a good man like that , is just ridicuolous.

by lori 2007-10-11 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: That is ridiculous.

Sorry wrong reply , this is in reply to what you wrote in reply to my comment , earlier.

by lori 2007-10-11 12:54PM | 0 recs
My tongue was in my cheek

Lighten up.

As for the real charge .. like I said it is thin.  I suspect it will blow sort of like the Kerry non story of '04.

by dpANDREWS 2007-10-11 01:00PM | 0 recs
Re: My tongue was in my cheek

Get your head out of your ass first.  That was NOT light at all.

Your brain is farting nonsense.

by pioneer111 2007-10-11 01:02PM | 0 recs
The Edwards campaign is fading

Donald Trump said years ago that all press is good press, I thought of that and sort of blended the two things together.

by dpANDREWS 2007-10-11 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: The Edwards campaign is fading

You might want to apologize first, and then explain your stupid conjectures.  

You keep trying to dismiss the fact that you implied the campaign would do something that crass.

Do you want to try again?  Or don't you get it?

by pioneer111 2007-10-11 01:08PM | 0 recs
No I won't bother

The Edwards campaign at this point is a distraction at best, a joke at worst.

Hey, who is Elizabeth attacking tomorrow?

by dpANDREWS 2007-10-11 06:44PM | 0 recs
Re: No I won't bother

Your comments at this point are a distraction at best, a joke at worst - actually there is no humor there.

So let me try again.

Your comments are pointless at best and a distraction at worst - that works better.

Hey will you have a witless comment tomorrow?

by pioneer111 2007-10-11 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Pretty thin charge

whatever little respect i had for  you has been lost completely with both this comment and what you said in the diary about edwards using his wife cancer.

by bruh21 2007-10-11 12:50PM | 0 recs
How weak

All I did was come to the defense of another poster that said that her cancer could be a ligitimate issue in the campaign.  I said that voters are entitled to their opinions and to take a wide range of issues effecting the candidate into consideration.

Now every so often long after that post, you drop your weak little comments, like the one above, probably making some thing that I attacked either Edwards or his wife over her cancer.  Which I did not.

Next have the sack to display my post.   I stand by it.

by dpANDREWS 2007-10-11 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: How weak

Thank you for confirming that my judgement about you was right.

by bruh21 2007-10-11 03:00PM | 0 recs
Re: How weak


If you are going to come, come strong.  If not stay home.  

Your attack is weak.

by dpANDREWS 2007-10-11 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: How weak

Good luck.

by bruh21 2007-10-12 05:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Pretty thin charge

You are right he deserves no respect at all.  I just read his reply to you.

Some people really have no decency at all.

I tried a couple of times, but he just continues in the same vein.

by pioneer111 2007-10-11 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Pretty thin charge

This is troll rateable crap.  Give me a break

You have NO class whatsoever.

by pioneer111 2007-10-11 01:01PM | 0 recs
Indeed it is n/t

by okamichan13 2007-10-11 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Pretty thin charge

lololol -- The thought occurred to me...........

by changehorses08 2007-10-11 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Pretty thin charge

Shows you there is more than one classless and clueless Hillary supporter around.  

by pioneer111 2007-10-11 07:41PM | 0 recs
A frontrunner wouldn't bother

... With a third place candidate who can't poll 15% and is out of cash.  

You need better conspiracy theories.

by dpANDREWS 2007-10-11 06:48PM | 0 recs
Ofcourse this was bs.

Was anyone buying this?  But the torture story with Hillary is also bs, and sadly the front pagers on this site have bought it.

by bookgrl 2007-10-11 12:25PM | 0 recs
Uh, Not Quite

The "torture story" is a legitimate analysis of Hillary's actual statements regarding torture, and in any case the front page diary concludes with the hope that she'll continue to show "eloquence and leadership" in "speaking out against torture." Doesn't really seem like "buying it" to me. Is even the tiniest amount of criticism of Hillary really that hard for you to handle?

by HatchInBrooklyn 2007-10-11 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: National Enquirer, Wonkette, bullshit bucket

Thanks, Jerome, for putting out the truth.

Dirty politics seems to know no limits now.

I suspect Coulter and her folks.

by TomP 2007-10-11 12:31PM | 0 recs
So presumably we'll be reading

the HuffPo apology any minute?

by edgery 2007-10-11 12:43PM | 0 recs
That one made me laugh...

How they let Stein peddle that shit is beyond rational belief.

by citizen53 2007-10-11 12:46PM | 0 recs
The Huff What?

You mean the Huffington Enquirer?

by BruceMcF 2007-10-11 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: National Enquirer, Wonkette, bullshit bucket

How long do we have to put up with this whack-a-mole stuff?

-crazy allegation surfaces
-pundits use it to prove, well, whatever they want it to
-world goes aha, those crazy bloggers/Dems/whatever
-we chase it down and show it's bullshit
-world has moved on and ignores us

I feel like we're all Bill Murray in Groundhog Day.

by some other george 2007-10-11 12:46PM | 0 recs
Thanks, Jerome

Appreciate this update. As a serious political writer, Sam Stein's credibility must be questioned here. I noticed that a lot of stuff from the old One America Committee site was scrubbed once Edwards announced he would run for President and came into being, some of my own written work included. (Still present in my own files). When I read this gossip piece by Mr. Stein, my first feeling was that he was full of BS, and my first thought was that his tactics were worse, perhaps, than the depths to which the National Enquirer often sinks. Why? Because the set-up of the story was ridiculous in its lack of any realistic grounding. It was journalistic kneejerk force fed by the misleadings of the tabloid story. This came from a professional political writer? It was what an amatuer blogger-speculator would do at best. He should've known better. As time goes by and as Mr. Stein wears thicker egg on the face, I hope the Huffington Post will react in some conciliatory way. They're much better than this.

by iddybud 2007-10-11 01:08PM | 0 recs

But did the National Enquirer mention her by name? They didn't. I don't know how people jumped to the conclusion that Rielle Hunter is the woman mentioned in this ridiculous piece.

The Edwards camp has the upperhand since John Edwards is mentioned specifically. He should sue them for all their worth.

by richochet 2007-10-11 01:29PM | 0 recs
Uhhh ... because there was only one series ...

... of "inside the campaign" video clips released in the time period discussed in the Stein piece?


Of course Stein avoided coming out and making a charge, on a story that even the National Enquirer ran in the back pages ... what is shocking is that the Huffington Enquirer chose to run it despite its weaknesses.

by BruceMcF 2007-10-11 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Uhhh ... because there was only one series ...

he Enquirer piece made no mention of Stein's work. Nothing. Some people simply thought of that connection.

by richochet 2007-10-11 01:50PM | 0 recs
Oh, more to the point, George Stein made no ...

... reference to the original National Enquirer piece, so he doesn't have the "a friend told us that" cover that the National Enquirer is going to use.

by BruceMcF 2007-10-11 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, more to the point, George Stein made no ..

The whole story is bs. So what exactly was Stein's research into and what was he trying to get at? I don't think he spelled out anything about an affair. No?

Anyway, stupid defamatory nonsense that needs to die.

by richochet 2007-10-11 02:07PM | 0 recs
That is exactly what George Stein was ...

... trying to get at:

A set of short documentary film "webisodes" made for former Sen. John Edwards prior to his presidential candidacy continues to weave a curious web, this time involving the filmmaker.

... and claims that she was a former drug user and party girl, a quote about her being the inspiration for a character that is a:

jaded, cocaine-addled, sexually voracious 20-year old

... and not actually saying anything.

IOW, just an effort to help along the National Enquirer story, hoping for it to surface in the comments, without actually coming out to make any explicit charges.

The real question should be whether the editor of the Huffington Enquirer should be approving wink wink, nudge nudge stories about candidates, especially one that the front page of the Huffington Enquirer make clear is not favored.

by BruceMcF 2007-10-11 02:24PM | 0 recs
Re: National Enquirer, Wonkette, bullshit bucket

The Enquirer piece made no mention of Stein's work. Nothing. Some people simply thought of that connection.

by richochet 2007-10-11 01:50PM | 0 recs
Steve Clemons believed it

If you've ever read The Washington Note, you figure Steve Clemons is a pretty level headed, thoughtful guy.

Not today.  He was wringing his hands plenty over this story:

Trouble for John Edwards?

This is either true -- or it's a lie. If part of a dirty tricks operation, it's odd that John Edwards would be the target.

I like and respect Huffington Post's Sam Stein who wrote the first thoughtful inquiry into what might be going on. Others have rushed to judgment, perhaps wrongly.

But given the tailwind this is getting in the blogosphere -- even among the left end -- Edwards will either have to zap hard those promulgating this extramarital drama and disavow her (as well as explain the $114,461 that went for some pretty lousy campaign videos), or he'll have to do his best at pulling an Alexander Hamilton, something Bill Clinton should have done regarding Monica Lewinsky.

More on Hamilton's confessions about adultery and denial of corruption here.

When challenged, Clemons said he was raising "the same questions tactfully that Sam Stein is."  How thoughtful.

And Clemons' reaction to Jerome's post?  Apparently, Hunter's denial wasn't worded correctly for him:

Technically, I wish Hunter had said flatly: "I had no sexual affair of any kind with John Edwards." Some on the right will read her statement as a non-denial denial.

But at least someone has said something in defense of Edwards as he has been quiet. If the veracity of Hunter's denial is solid, then Edwards and/or Hunter should demand a retraction from the National Enquirer and sue if they don't get it.

And because this story had appeared on HuffPo and Slate--"not exactly bastions of conservative conspiracy" according to Clemons--there must be more than a grain of truth to what's being said.

I'm off to delete TWN from my blogroll.

by KimPossible 2007-10-11 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Steve Clemons believed it

Oh please, Hillary is not worried about John Edwards- he has no chance of winning and that's obvious to everyone but his supporters.  It actually helps her for him to be where he is because he would potentially take 2nd place in Iowa which would bump Obama to third- who is Hillary's real competition- a 3rd place for Obama in Iowa helps Hillary a lot and I'm sure she knows it.

by reasonwarrior 2007-10-11 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Steve Clemons believed it

I find it hilarious that someone like Steve Clemons finds that the production and editing of three videos would cost $100K. Is he that naive?  He should check out Obama's filings to see how much polling and video production can really cost.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-10-12 04:16AM | 0 recs
Nice plane

Nice videos.

The former head of the trial lawyers lobby association sure loaned a nice airplane to John for his work at "the poverty center".

by hwc 2007-10-11 03:58PM | 0 recs
I knew it!!

From last night's Tucker Carlson show:

COULTER:  By the way, could I mention something?  I mean, it`s breaking right now as I was coming on air.  You mentioned Lizzie Edwards.  "National Enquirer" is breaking a major story that will be--we can start the time clock on now when the mainstream media will pick it up, on John Edwards having an 18-month affair.  

CARLSON:  Well, I`m going to have to wait until the "National Enquirer" confirms that for me on my next trip to the supermarket.  

COULTER:  You can check online on my Web page right now.

I knew when Ann Coulter mentioned this National Enquirer story about John Edwards on the Tucker Carlson show yesterday that somehow Hillary would be blamed for this-surprise, surprise. Why would Hillary want to promote a story about adultery of all things when she's trying to run a campaign that just remembers the good times of the Clinton era? How exactly does a story about alleged adultery committed by Edwards help her? If traditional media covers this story, they will somehow try to tie it to Bill's affair with Monica. Given how successful she has run her campaign over the last couple of months, HRC doesn't want all of that dredged up again. Who in this campaign benefits when people talk about adultery? It's certainly not Clinton!!

by ademption 2007-10-11 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: I knew it!!

I can't think of a more despicable act that the media could commit than running with this bs tabloid story. How low will they go?

My heart goes out to the Edwards family.

by misscee 2007-10-11 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: National Enquirer, Wonkette, bullshit bucket

Well, I'm glad she answered and with this, they should be given the benefit of the doubt- it more concerned me that "One America"- the poverty charity, threw away over $100,000 over something they didn't use like they said they would- that's a lot of money and if he didn't know about campaign laws before he tossed $100,000 out the window, how can we expect him to be in charge of budgets?

I'm glad she surfaced, though, I believe her.  I mean, Elizabeth has got to have heard the story by now and I think she would figure out if something was going on and would not stand for it, so unless she leaves him, I don't think the story is true.

by reasonwarrior 2007-10-11 05:54PM | 0 recs
Re: National Enquirer, Wonkette, bullshit bucket

Yeah, it sounds plausible that a candidate ahead by 30 points in the polls would do that.  Next she'll be sending goons to break Mike Gravel's kneecaps, huh?

by Steve M 2007-10-11 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: National Enquirer, Wonkette, bullshit bucket

Nixon broke into Watergate, when he did not have to do so. By your logic, that would be an impossibility.

by bruh21 2007-10-11 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: National Enquirer, Wonkette, bullshit bucket

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it's highly improbable.  If you're the kind of person who instinctively blames this sort of thing on Hillary, which I hope you're not, I hate to think what you believe about Vince Foster.

by Steve M 2007-10-11 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: National Enquirer, Wonkette, bullshit bucket

You think its highly improbable that a friend of a candidate would use their position of power to influence the election in that candidate's favor, regardless of polling data that everyone including that candidate know isn't worth very much historically? What was the swiftboating of Kerry? Nixon? There are thousands of other examples that make what you are advocating seem absurd in our political process and history.

I wrote my statement to provide context.  You argued that its absolutely impossible and illogical to conclude what the other poster wrote is right or amounts to some vast conspiracy theory now (I mean "Vince Foster", really? is that the best you got with a simple statement about influence?).

For the record, I don't know if I believe the other poster is correct. Never said I did believe the other poster in fact. What I did say was that your response was false that polling data can tell you how poll actors will behave in this country when in fact my prior examples show it does not work that way. My point in other words solely responded to your rebuttal.

by bruh21 2007-10-12 04:58AM | 0 recs
Re: National Enquirer, Wonkette, bullshit bucket

Well now you're advancing an entirely different theory, that the guy did it on his own to "help" Hillary.  Obviously that's plausible.  But the idea that Hillary is lurking behind the scenes, planting hit jobs in the National Enquirer, is too unlikely for me to accept.  And it's a useful reminder of how people will believe anything, literally anything, when it comes to the Clintons.

by Steve M 2007-10-12 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: National Enquirer, Wonkette,

Hey, I'm an Edwards supporter.  From your lips to God's ears, but I really think this is overly optimistic.

And it's one thing to accuse Hillary's campaign of planting garden-variety negative stories, which sounds like business as usual to me, and it's quite another to suggest that she's planting stories in the National Enquirer about Edwards having an affair.  That's just a really vicious accusation to make.

by Steve M 2007-10-12 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: National Enquirer, Wonkette, bullshit bucket
86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119
120 121 122 123 124 125 126
127 128 129 1301 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
by Remy 2008-02-07 11:24PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads