Though he claims to have incriminating photos of John Edwards, David Perel is refusing to publish them. Some might see this as reason to question the National Enquirer's reports that Edwards carried on an affair with mistress Rielle Hunter, fathered a child with her, and has arranged $15,000 a month to be paid to her to keep quiet (and, perhaps, pay for diapers). Others see this as a savvy business move that allows the Enquirer to keep the story, and newsstand sales, to itself, since without photo evidence, other mainstream publications are wary to jump on the story and steal Perel's exclusives.
Others see it as Perel being a dick.
Or more precisely, his enabling the Edwards camp to mount a defense. Because if only the downmarket Enquirer is on the beat, he can stay mum, and time is on his side. Here's Slate's Mickey Kaus:
Perel told me much the same thing when I followed up–that it's "not about the photos but about the rest of the story, and the story is just going to get bigger from here."
This seems like a tragic mistake on Perel's part. Why? Rationally or irrationally**, release of the photos has become the talismanic MSM/bien pensant test for whether the Enquirer can be believed about anything. Release them now and the big dailies and networks will all jump into the Edwards investigation, sources will talk (because they're either emboldened or terrified of looking bad), the whole story will come out in short order. Wikipedia will unlock! And the nation will be able move on.
Delay releasing the pics–in hopes of pursuing a "bigger" story, whatever that is–and you give Edwards time to regroup. You give the Protect Elizabeth lobbyists time to call up their media mogul friends (including the ones who own the Enquirer). You discourage truth-telling sources from sticking their necks out while you encourage ass-covering sources to remain loyal to Team E. We could end up with seven months of seething undernews rebellion, no MSM coverage of either the Rielle scandal or whatever "hotter" story the Enquirer documents***–and, next year, H.H.S. Secretary John Edwards.
It's like the famously parodied scene in a Bond film where instead of just shooting poor Bond the villain tries to stage some more elaborate and prolonged auto da fe, with the result that Bond is able to escape.
And it's hard not to completely suppress the feeling that the Enquirer is milking the story to boost its role (and, not incidentally newsstand sales). After being scorned by the Edwards-defending MSM last fall, Perel may understandably be content with building a separate EnquirerWorld where refugees from the mainstream matrix can go to learn the truth for the next few weeks. But that assumes he can pull off his long-term story plan without some other outfit scooping him three weeks out. Why make Dr. Evil's mistake?
I want to see John Edwards squirm and be humiliated just because he is so self righteous. All he did was smirk throughout the primary, he was dangling his endorsement in front of Hillary like candy and then he gave it to Obama when he knew Obama would win. He was sure he was going to be named V.P. How do these guys have the face to stand in front of the public and pontificate on what is right and what is wrong. I am sick of paying taxes and getting these degenerate pigs as representatives, if they aren't cruising bathrooms they are having affairs, kids, and then getting in front of the cameras and acting so superior.
The Edwards thing is a huge, stinking non-story. If John Edwards, or anyone, wants to have an affair, it is not the business of the media or the public. Edwards is a private citizen. It’s no one’s business. It is, for the 1,000th time, a non-story. It is non-news. No one cares. Story over. –30–.
Savvy business move or being a dick? I don't see why it can't be both!
"It is, for the 1,000th time, a non-story."
Good luck with that.
Nonstory? What?! It's a huge story. The guy ran for president, with his cancer-stricken wife lauding his praises, and is still up for VP.
These politicians just think they can get away with anything. Imagine if your neighbor was doing this to his wife, wouldn't you think a little less of him; reconsidering doing business with them, etc etc? Especially the guy who acts so morally superior?
Jossip, stay on this story. It's a big one. Edwards' buddies can try to claim a nonstory, but the rest of us know they shouldn't hide it.
Poor Elizabeth.
As HuffPo says:
Edwards himself made this an issue while he was running for President, explicitly. When Katie Couric asked about infidelity as one of her "Ten Questions" for the candidates, the focus was on how Hillary Clinton answered, but Edwards was the strongest on fidelity as an indicator of presidential worthiness, calling it "fundamental" and about "whether you keep what is your ultimate word, which is that you love your spouse, and you'll stay with them."
The presidential question is now moot, of course, but back then, this opened the door wide for the MSM to legitimately investigate evidence to the contrary.
Edwards isn't running for anything and he IS NOT on the vice president list, neither the short list nor the long list. This is a non-story. Really. Nobody cares, not even those idiots who actually read the Enquirer.
If Edwards isn't running for anything, you might want to tell the Democrats. A lot of them seem to think he is, for some odd reason.
The reason this is a non-story is that the media didn't pay attention to Edwards when he was running for President. Now conservatives want people to pay attention…
"Edwards was the strongest on fidelity as an indicator of presidential worthiness, calling it “fundamental”"
Woof.