Might a John Edwards Dem convention role be in jeopardy?

As Barack Obama heads off on vacation in Hawaii, his convention planners will be hard at work ironing out not only the logistics of Hillary Clinton's presence at the confab in Denver (will she or will she not insist on having her name placed in nomination?), but dealing with a potentially even trickier question: how large of a spotlight -- if any -- to give John Edwards.

In a story Thursday, the Charlotte Observer quotes several prominent Democrats -- by name -- who urge Edwards to more convincingly confront allegations by the National Enquirer, which he has denied, that he had an affair and that his alleged mistress bore a child by him.

If he does not meet this challenge, these Democrats say, he risks losing a high-profile slot as a convention speaker.

"If there is not an explanation that’s satisfactory, acceptable and meets high moral standards, the answer is 'no,' he would not be a prime candidate to make a major address to the convention," Don Fowler, who headed the Democratic National Committee from 1995-97, told the newspaper.

Chris Lehane, a key Al Gore aide during the 2000 presidential campaign, added that "an appearance at the convention [by Edwards] would only highlight the unresolved story."

Edwards flatly dismissed the Enquirer allegations when they first surfaced -- albeit barely, and with little evidence to back them up -- last year when he was running for the Democratic presidential nomination.

But the story resurfaced in late July after the Enquirer staked out a Beverly Hills hotel and reported Edwards had met with his alleged mistress.

Edwards has continued to deny the affair allegations, but he has done so fleetingly and in terse answers to questions that he quickly cuts short.

For the most part, mainstream media outlets have not pursued the matter, in part because Edwards no longer is a presidential candidate nor does he hold a public office. The Times National Editor Scott Kraft explained the newspaper's stance in a note today, published on the Reader's Representative blog.

Still, as the Observer story demonstrates, it could become hard for Edwards to expect to play a prominent role at the Democratic convention later this month without more thoroughly answering questions raised by the Enquirer stories.

Earlier this week, one former newspaperman, Alan Mutter, had this to say on his Reflections of a Newsosaur blog:

"National Enquirer scoop or not, there appears to be way too much smoke here for the major mainstream media to continue ignoring the story about the out-of-wedlock child that John Edwards may have fathered.

With everyone from Drudge to Leno to Wonkette riffing on a tale that began trickling out at Christmas, the MSM look foolishly out of touch by continuing to remain silent about the allegation that Edwards fathered the girl recently born to a former campaign aide.

This is a messy and unseemly matter that I wish never had seen the light of day. Now that it is festering on the web, on talk radio and around the watercooler, mainstream journalists owe their readers and viewers their best professional efforts to sort fact from innuendo. ..."

-- Don Frederick

Photo credit: Associated Press

Comments

[Clay Landon]

Question for Alan Mutter: how does one sort fact from innuendo in a story that has nothing but innuendo?

And then there's this: "But the story resurfaced in late July after the Enquirer staked out a Beverly Hills hotel and reported Edwards had met with his alleged mistress."

The story did not include photos, quotes or an eyewitness account--that's from the link you provided. No one saw anything, no one said they saw anything. But by all means, let's follow up on it.

[David B.]

Might his role be in jeopardy? Of course he isn't speaking at the convention. And don't think allowing your bloggers to tiptoe around the edges of this story NOW takes the LA Times off the hook for willfully withholding this story from the American public. YOU are the story. YOU knew about this last year when WE were considering him for President of the US. YOU deliberately broke the public trust by putting your PARTISAN concerns above your duty to report the news fairly and in a timely manner. YOU deliberately tried to manipulate the electoral process by dereliction of duty. I shall never forget nor forgive this OUTRAGE. Oh yeah, and "Keep Rockin'!" losers. YOUR time is over.

[Peter Bray]

I thought that the LA Times had banned its bloggers from touching this issue with a 10 foot pole?

[Chris Hayes]

"For the most part, mainstream media outlets have not pursued the matter, in part because Edwards no longer is a presidential candidate nor does he hold a public office."

Ha!

If this alleged affair and love child involved Mitt Romney or Karl Rove, one might assume that the nation's daily papers would have been more anxious to cover the story.

This coverage (or lack of it) stinks of liberal bias, no matter the excuses put forth here.

This story exploded at the Beverly Hills Hotel! And it is ignored by the LA Times. Hard to imagine.

It's pretty sad that the American public is forced to turn to Drudge to find out what's really going on in the world.

[annika]

This is the story of the year. Edwards had victory in his hand and poof! it's all gone now. How could he betray his wife, children, and the people who voted for him before? This is clear proof of why we need more women in office.

[keith]

Now we know what John Edwards is doing when the phone rings at 3 am!

And then there's this: "But the story resurfaced in late July after the Enquirer staked out a Beverly Hills hotel and reported Edwards had met with his alleged mistress."

The story did not include photos, quotes or an eyewitness account--that's from the link you provided. No one saw anything, no one said they saw anything. But by all means, let's follow up on it.

Posted by: Clay Landon | August 07, 2008 at 09:38 PM

Uh, Carl, it was all over the news, the security gaurd had to fight off the reporters to get Johnny Boy out of the basement bathroom and out of the hotel.

[teresa]

I agree with David B.
YOU are the story. MSM. Why didn't anyone seriously investigate the growing allegations? This man, Edwards, was a presidential candidate. He was (but no more) a also serious candidate for other positions in a possible Obama administration. It's not only an alleged affair, it's also all the seeming efforts of a cover-up. This story deserved so much more investigation than what it got.

[Lorraine]

Mr. AND Mrs. Edwards have been preaching family values for long enough. And harshly criticizing especially any and all Republican politicians who in human terms fell under the very same personal scrutiny as Mr. Edwards faces right now. The pubilc has a right to know all - expressly because these two have promoted themselves as being the very PERFECT liberal images of family values. He CHOSE to make every part of his life PUBLIC when he CHOSE to run for president in this very same calendar year. Come on. Just answer the question posed to you, MR. Edwards - truthfully and honestly this time. About time.

[CC]

The timing concerns me. If Edwards isn't welcome to speak at the convention, does that leave more room for the Clintons?

[ann romero]

who cares?

i don't care.

and really, it doesn't matter...

at all...

either true

or

not.

puritans.

[Jane]

Oh.My.God. The pristine LA Times has sullied its hallowed self with mention of (gasp) the possible (pause, look over each shoulder) affair of the now private citizen (never mind he could have been VP or Atty Gen'l) John R. Edwards. Quick, quick, my smelling salts! How can we possibly expect our venerable institutions of news to report such things? Certainly, they did NOT report that Bill Bennett, a private citizen who compiled an anthology about morals, had a penchant for gambling. NO! That would have been WRONG! It would not have served the public interest. Plus, it may have harmed his innocent family, who…what? What is that you say? They did report that? Oh, well I suppose the conservative brother (private citizen though he may have been at the time) of the lawyer to the President who was dallying with an intern wearing a blue dress is certainly fair game! After all, all John Edward’s is doing is jetting about the country giving very visible speeches about the Two America’s and how he will rectify this problem in ten years, probably at the behest of a possible President Obama. But don’t you dare call him a public servant. No siree. He is just a private citizen and is entitled to research illegitimacy any way he chooses, as long as he pays the employees involved (Andrew Young, Rielle Hunter) a decent working wage ($20000, $15000 per month). No, No, No. Do not sully your lily white newsprint with such Tabloid trash. That’s what John Edwards says it is, and if he says so, it must be true. Why waste an reporter’s precious breath on the question “Mr. Edwards, is it true you were at the Beverly Hilton visting Rielle Hunter and your child on the night of July _ ?”

[Timothy L. Pennell]

What's all the fuss about? It's the National Enquirer, for Gods' sakes. When have they EVER been right? I mean, besides the Monica Lewinski story. And I guess you can throw in the whole "ick stained" Blue Dress thingy. Now that I think of it, when was the last time they DIDN'T get it right. This whole sack of crap is Exhibit#1, in the case of why the Main Stream Scumbag Media, is always trying to talk down any alternative "News Sources". THEY'LL let you know when something is news. And who broke down that wall of News Monopolization? Thank you, Rush Limbaugh. 20 Great Years of the TRUTH.

[Charles]

.
Everyone knows it's true.

Notice how everyone already has him crossed off the Vice Presidential list when just 2 weeks ago, he was one of two names forwarded by a Committee for VP of the United States of America.

People know it's true and that's why no one even mentions him as a VP candidate.

[Tim 88]

What lame excuses for why the minstream media arent covering this. He is or was on the shortlist for VP.

The reason the mainstream media isnt covering this is becasue it's embarassing to democrats.

Most of the major daily newspapers are nothing more than disguised leftwing blogs trying to act objective.

it int even a question that if this were Huckabee or Romney it would be banner headlines and wall to wall coverage on TV news.

[Jim]

Shame on you, Mr. Malcolm. You seem to be a loose cannon who will write about things just because you find them interesting or important. Why, you even covered that Ron Paul guy and all those "Constitution" and "liberty" nuts. God help us all. Won't somebody please get this man a copy of the script?

[Alessandro Machi]

John Edwards was part of the hit job on Hillary Clinton. Edward's Top Rural Advisor, Dave "Mudcat" Saunders stated that he "would do everything in his power to make sure John Edwards did not endorse Hillary Clinton".

Even the timing of Edwards withdrawal, just before all of those caucus contests in February, was done so Edwards supporters could be "flipped" to Obama supporters. In concert, Edwards, Richardson and Obama take their name off of the Michigan ballot on the last filing day it was possible to do so so they could brag to Iowans how loyal they were to their right to go first. These actions reveal a comradery against the Clintons that went beyond normal politics and possibly reveals bribery and extortion to both Richardson and Edwards.

http://www.HILLARY-WINS.com
http://www.CAUCUSCHEATING.com
http://www.FAIR-REFLECTION.com
http://www.PROTEST-POSTCARDS.com

[Alex in DC]

The only

people who write

coments

in this style are

shtoopid liberals like Ann Romero

who thinks their cutesy 'haiku' writing style bastardized

by the likes of Rosy O'Donnell

somehow makes their amaturish opinions

seem poignent.

[Gail Cormier]

I'd like to call for John Edwards to have a DNA test. His wife is dying and he is unwilling to clear up this issue. This sounds fishy.
His answers sound all too simular to another great Democrat who thought he could get away with anything. Anyone remember, "I did not have sex with that woman." line?

[Whomper]

John McCain's possible romantic connection to a lobbyist is front page news, but Edwards cheating is a forbidden topic? COME ON! How much more proof does one need that the national media has a double standard for Republicans and Democrats scandals?

[Robin B]

The fact is, John Edwards is simply the latest in a long line of Democrat scumbags. The real story is how the national media has gone to great pains to avoid giving this any publicity.

[Big Al]

Well, well, L.A. Times you are now off the hook! ! ! !
Thank God.
For not reporting the story in your own back yard.
Is Beverly Hills across the world from L.A. ! !

[keith]

Well, liberals and Democrats can do no wrong so why would this be news? Really, all Edwards did was change his position on the subject of his marriage, after carefully considering all the facts.

[doug in seattle]

Alex in DC,

UR funny

& UR right

[Deane]

It isn't innuendo anymore. There are photographs. The left will continue to bury their heads in the sand, but this former presidential candidate cheated on his sick wife and two children. He's perfect Democrat material.

Had he been Republican there would be no end to the media attention he would get. Well, thanks to the new media, he won't escape scrutiny.

[Dan Schwartz]

News Flash:

The National Enquirer had the photos on page 35 in their print edition yesterday (Thursday) morning: I saw it at 9:00 AM EDT.

In fact, I went ahead and purchased a copy of the paper -- The first physical newspaper I've bought in about 3 years -- Just to show my support of their worthwhile investigative journalism.

Furthermore, Mr. Edwards is still, technically, campaigning for President -- As is Mrs. Clinton -- because neither of them released their delegates to Mr. Obama.

Mr. Fredrick and Mrs. Gold: Facts tend to be stubborn things: Your newspaper has committed the journalistic sin of political bias by omission.

Dan Schwartz
Sayreville, NJ