LAist: The John Edwards/Rielle Hunter 'Affair'... and Webisodes

jrb

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:35:05 -0800

" Shouldn't the Enquirer be a good source for this sort of news?" Oh sterling source of factual information! People who read the Inquirer usually think that the moon walk was faked, and that wrestling is real. "Why does it matter if he has an affair or not?" It doesn't to me. Apparently it does to the Inquirer.

richardsp

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:06:47 -0800

I've noticed much hand wringing and Enquirer bashing from the left, and a lot of gloating from the right on this John Edwards 'affair' and I have some questions. 1. Shouldn't the Enquirer be a good source for this sort of news? They make their money from celebrity sightings and by tracking who is screwing whom. This is certainly not the NY Times forte. 2. Doesn't anyone remember Gary Hart? 3. Why should anyone care on either side? I can't figure out why this matters at all. And that is actually the most important question. Why does it matter if he has an affair or not?

huskerlaw

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:26:14 -0800

Ok, sorry all...my sarcasm detector malfunctioned. Carry on!

jrb

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:18:02 -0800

"You're kidding, right?" Actually I am. If the Inquirer had photos, I'd be looking for evidence of Photoshop.

Andy Sternberg

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:12:36 -0800

of course, huskerlaw, tongue firmly planted in cheek. My own cheek.

huskerlaw

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:11:01 -0800

You're kidding, right? How is that "definitive" evidence of anything? Meanwhile, the Enquirer claims to have numerous pictures of an alleged meeting between Edwards and Hunter last week. Where are those pictures? And how come no other news source has found anything to back up the Enquirer's story? Unless you want to make the claim that the media is bypassing a politician love scandal on purpose (and really, I doubt you want to make that claim), then where is the proof? Pictures, DNA tests, heck even eyewitness testimony from someone other than a National Enquirer photographer...that evidence would be much more "definitive" than some yanked webisodes. Or are we supposed to blindly believe the next Enquirer cover claiming Oprah is having an alien baby? At least those stories are usually supported by pictures.

jrb

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:05:55 -0800

Well geeze! If it's in the Inquirer it MUST be true! And look at the proof. Rielle Hunter photgraphs John Edwards. Rielle Hunter comes up preggers. It's gotta be John Edwards! What else could it be! Immaculate conception?