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.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,3012 22,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/1011 07_rls_2008_web.pdf

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

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

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

Thanks, Jerome, for putting out the truth.

Dirty politics seems to know no limits now.

I suspect Coulter and her folks.

the HuffPo apology any minute?

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.

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 JohnEdwards.com 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.

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.

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

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.

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".

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.  

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21249446/
--

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!!

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.

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?