To their credit, Wikipedia has republished the Edwards love child story as “John Edwards paternity allegations“. Their internal discussion continues.
More from this surreal soap opera here.
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
Oh, let’s just get a look at the kid. Or maybe just the kid’s *hair*. That might settle a lot of this.
Seriously, Edwards himself could end this story here and now with a simple paternity test. True, he shouldn’t have to prove his innocence, but if it were me, and I were innocent, and had a big upcoming speech at my party’s presidential convention, I’d just take the damned test. It would shut everyone up and let me get on stage, bask in the warmth of conservatives’ unfair vilification, and be a party hero – because who loves victims more than Democrats?
Well, Edwards isn’t me (envy me, John, I have better hair), and he isn’t doing any of this. Sure looks like a weasel to me – but then again, he always has.
Scott
“…bask in the warmth of conservatives’ unfair vilification”
Huh? Who are these conservatives? I am unaware of any center-right thinker who is engaged in the vilification of John Edwards. Is the National Enquirer a conservative publication? Gosh, where have I been all my life? Most reasonable conservatives are mildly curious—but candidly admit that they don’t know the truth of the matter. The world is not always fair. Edwards is well advised to put this matter behind him as quickly as possible.
srlucado you answered your own question “but if it were me, and I were innocent.”
But what if it were you and you WEREN’T innocent?
David, I’m certain srlucado was referring to the *perceived* “vilification” by conservatives – he wasn’t implying that this is in fact what is going on. I took it as obvious and deserved sarcasm. To wit: “because who loves victims more than Democrats?” I’ll take ‘nobody’ for $1,000, Alex.
If the Pony doesn’t come forward and refute the claims with a paternity test or some other lawyerly proof it is because he cannot. If he could do so, he certainly would have by now in order to allow the basking and speechifying srlucado spoke of to commence in Denver. He is busted cold and he knows it.
I look forward to the MSM’s sheepish coverage once the coverup completely snowballs — as if it hasn’t already — and blows up in everyone’s face. It should be quite glorious when it does. You can’t help but feel sorry for Young’s wife; If she understandably lashes out at some point this charade will truly be over.
Estrich’s candor (good on her) is but a crack in the dam.
How is this not news? His coverup story, implicating a married man, was news. Is it not news that the entire story was a lie? Of course it’s news. But, it doesn’t help BHO’s children. That must be the test.
The John Edward affair is a peccadillo compared to the allegations that Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud.
dammit — i opened this post because i had a serious, weighty thought on John Edwards. then i blinked and it was gone. oh well.
Could the MSM be so in the tank for Obama, so blinded by idolatry, they just haven’t gotten around vetting a candidate for the presidency?
If someone (other than the MSM and the initial accusers) independently verifies this allegation – it will spell the doom of the MSM as we know it today.
I know that’s lots of IFS, but as Vince Scully would say… mine o mine.
“David, I’m certain srlucado was referring to the *perceived* “vilification” by conservatives – he wasn’t implying that this is in fact what is going on. I took it as obvious and deserved sarcasm.”
Lightnin’ strikes. Exactly what I intended. Thank you.
“But what if it were you and you WEREN’T innocent?”
Well, yeah, that’s my point. The ifs in my comment are pretty darned big.
Scott
P.S. Drudge is currently featuring a link to Enquirer photographs.
Could the MSM be so in the tank for Obama, so blinded by idolatry…
The MSM has been assiduously avoiding the Edwards’ story as it is a gigantic chink in their narrative.
Trouble is, the real story is MSM suppression, not John Boy’s liaisons dangereuses.
srlucado,
I got your sarcasm I just figured that you could come up with a sufficiently biting answer to my hypothetical; maybe something to do with hair dye or cross dressing. ;^)
Rove, you magnificent bastard!
Evan Bayh, John Edwards – separated at birth?
First comes love
Next comes affairage
Then comes Silky
With a bay-bee carriage!
Hey Buddy, hot weather down there in Tejas
It ain’t the heat, PG, it’s the dry. The other day a weed sprung up in the pasture and the cows won’t eat it, they’d rather stand behind it for the shade.