Callan explained that Edwards’ legal team is essentially asking for more time to review numerous documents in preparation for the trial, adding that “oh, by the way,” their client is suffering from some sort of ailment.

RELATED: Just Released: John Edwards’ Mugshot

When Burnett asked if the type of illness would make any difference, Callan quipped, “Well, I’m betting he’s not getting a vasectomy. However, if he had done so, perhaps he wouldn’t be facing these charges.”

Put your sunscreen away, children, because all we’re serving is shade.

Have a look, courtesy of CNN:

According to Mother Jones, Rep. Bachmann paid thousands of dollars to a stylist listed as working with Fox News and the Gingriches, something those who have worked with her politically previously found surprising:

According to Bachmann’s latest campaign finance filings, her campaign spent nearly $4,700 on hair and makeup in the weeks after she entered the presidential race on June 13. Records show her campaign made three payments of $1,715, $250, and $2,704 to a Maryland-based stylist named Tamara Robertson. Robertson’s LinkedIn profile says she works as a makeup artist at Fox News in the DC area. She’s also listed in the “Make-up” section of the credits for the Citizens United-produced film A City Upon a Hill, hosted by Newt and Callista Gingrich—a pair who’ve raised eyebrows with their own spending. [...]

In February, the Minneapolis City Pages quoted a celebrity stylist named Natalie Hale saying that Bachmann paid her $225 for three different makeup sessions during the 2010 campaign. Hale added, however, that Bachmann tried to avoid paying for such services when possible. “I know for a fact if Michele has to pay for makeup she will usually instead do it herself,” Hale said.

It isn’t the first time a politician faces scrutiny for aesthetic dedication: John Edwards‘ famously received $400 haircuts and Sarah Palin found herself in trouble after the RNC’s clothing bills for her were released in 2008. It is an attack that, in the right context, has proven to work. What Rep. Bachmann’s detractors will find difficult in using it, however, is precisely that it is so uncharacteristic– that she did not exhibit vain or impulsive behavior in her past, so to highlight expenses that pale in comparison to other, wealthier politicians may backfire.

Not to mention that, as a female candidate with a serious shot at the White House, gender politics comes into play. The whole thing poses a chicken or egg question as to the aesthetics of female candidates: did women up the ante on what they should look like in politics themselves, or is that a mantle foisted upon them by exterior pressures? It seems Rep. Bachmann had previously not felt any urges to spend on such things in these amounts, despite winning several elections and being one of the elite in the U.S. Congress. She has more money to burn now for the campaign, certainly, as donations come in from around the nation, but those around her could very well argue that had she wanted to indulge in such a manner before, she would have just gotten herself a credit card. Those delving into the inside baseball of all this may blame strategist Ed Rollins or others in the campaign for convincing her that it was necessary.

All the speculation, however, presupposes that voters will have an interest in the story. Opponents have opened up far more politically relevant war fronts with this candidate at the moment, from her comments on homosexuality to her routine migraines, than most others, and whether this one is a war front worth pursuing will determine how much voters will hear about it in the future– not the level of outrage appropriate for the spending.

Edwards’ career freefall took an unprecedented turn for the worse when Edwards was indicted a few months ago, but all signs point to him being disgraced and hated throughout his hometown long before his woes developed a legal nature. Cottle notes that a local bar famous for its photos of celebrities is regularly inundated with requests to replace his photo with one of his wife, Elizabeth, or at least relocate his to the bathroom. While there is sympathy for his children, residents speak of him as a pariah so scurrilous few will interact with him, and his disgrace is no laughing matter:

The first, inescapable fact on the ground is that the folks around Raleigh and Chapel Hill are not yet in a forgiving mood. While legal experts debate the merits of the Justice Department’s case against Edwards, the hometown crowd has issued its own, more personal verdict: Depending on who you ask, the man is “a snake,” “a scumbag,” or, as Betty Henderson, receptionist at the Edwardses’ longtime church home in Raleigh, eloquently put it, “a narcissist so in love with himself that he can’t see past his own desires.”

Even on his decline, there was a time, Cottle writes, when Edwards was a character to be ridiculed and not so sternly scorned. He became, to a certain extent, that guy at everyone’s local bar, flirting with college girls and drinking away his problems because there was nothing better to do. “Particularly during the period when Elizabeth kicked him out of the house and he was living in an apartment near the main drag where UNC students congregate, Edwards was a fixture at area watering holes,” Cottle notes, adding that, yes, people used to actually talk to him. The image she recalls most vividly is one of the stereotypical failed man of Hollywood– somewhere between Nicolas Cage in Leaving Las Vegas or an extra in an obscure 1980s Mickey Rourke movie. It is difficult to equate that man with a politician who could have been a heartbeat away from the presidency merely seven years ago.

Yet, somehow, who Edwards is now is even more tragic than he was while Elizabeth Edwards was still alive– the days of pathetic bar-hobbling seem to have been left behind to spend more time with his family. “According to cemetery staff, the senator comes frequently to visit his wife and son,” Cottle notes of Edwards, adding that, given the number of Confederate tombs in the area, historical tours often pass by. “Observes one staffer,” she notes, “’How humiliating it must be for him to be sitting out there with all those people [gawking and whispering.]‘”

Edwards appears far beyond the point of no return, at least when it comes to his political career, and having an ice-cold home such as this to limp back to makes prison sound slightly more comfortable, if at least an escape from the life Cottle paints for him. As his case proceeds through the legal process, Edwards will soon be back in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons, and perhaps finally able to escape his hometown, though it may serve as a frying pan from which to leap straight into a burning media firestorm all over again.

A federal grand jury indicted Edwards on six counts, including conspiracy, making false statements, and violating campaign contribution laws. The case stems from alleged payments made in an attempt to cover up Edwards’ affair with Rielle Hunter.

Reports the Enquirer, quoting a “source close to the scandal”:

Elizabeth wanted to exact revenge against John for destroy­ing their 33-year marriage and family by cheating with Rielle.

It was Elizabeth’s idea to secret­ly record a video and tell what knew of the affair and John’s horrific betrayal.

The source added that Edwards then passed the video on to a friend, asking that it be sent to prosecutors in the case against her husband.

Last week, John Edwards pleaded not guilty following a federal grand jury’s indictment on charges he conspired to cover up his affair during his 2008 campaign by “secretly obtaining,” donors’ contributions and later misreporting these donations.

h/t National Enquirer

Maddow’s comprehensive sex scandal chart has all the greatest hits on it– from long-forgotten tickle fiend Eric Massa to unsinkable prostitute patron Sen. David Vitter, CNN host Eliot Spitzer to Appalachian hiker Mark Sanford. Rep. Weiner made his debut on the chart today high on the creepiness scale but low on the prosecutable scale, somewhere near Massa and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Elsewhere on the chart– highest on both chances of going to jail and being a creep? John Edwards and John Ensign, both of which had lovers– the former with a lovechild, the latter having bribed the lover’s parents and family to keep it under wraps. Vitter and Spitzer, despite one having resigned and the other not, and lowest on both factors is Gov. Jim McGreevey, the New Jersey governor who appointed his boyfriend (who was not a U.S. citizen– a detail Maddow omitted) to a Homeland Security leadership position and came out as a “gay American.”

Check out the chart via MSNBC below:

The charges against Edwards stem directly from behavior associated with his affair with Rielle Hunter, money that may have been used to keep the affair silent. Two of the sources of these funds, Edwards campaign finance chairman Fred Baron and donor Bunny Mellon, are having their donations investigated in particular. Despite the fact that Edwards’ behavior towards his family has mostly been universally reviled, argued Abrams, it takes more than being a bad person to go to jail. Discussing the money, he explained that the intent behind donating said money is what will ultimately determine the case. “If it was clearly intended to further John Edwards’ presidential campaign,” Abrams noted, “he could be in big trouble.” The other possible situation is that the money was clearly intended as a gift, which falls into a different category than a campaign donation legally, or that it was deliberately intended as “an effort to prevent Elizabeth Edwards from finding out about [the affair'],” in which case “that might make him a bad person, but it wouldn’t make it a crime.”

The discussion via ABC below:

Former Senator John Edwards, who was the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004, has entered a not guilty plea in a North Carolina courtroom, telling reporters he’s sorry for what he has done, but he has broken no law. “There’s no question I’ve done wrong,” Edwards told reporters outside the courthouse, “and I will regret for the rest of my life the pain and the harm that I have caused to others. But I did not break the law, and I never ever thought I was breaking the law.”

The plea comes after a federal grand jury indicted Edwards on charges he conspired to cover up an extramarital affair during the 2008 campaign by “secretly obtaining,” money from donors and then misusing and misreporting the donations. The indictment says Edwards was driven by a desire to hide his affair–and the birth of a child–from his wife and reporters.

According to the indictment, it was essential to hide the affair, as it threatened his viability as a national political figure. “A centerpiece of Edwards’s candidacy was his public image as a devoted family man.”

Edwards and his lawyer insist the former VP candidate has not broken any laws. How’s the government’s case look? Judge Andrew Napolitano believes it’s far from “a slam dunk” and argues the government may be “stretching.”

Watch Edwards’ comments, from CNN, and Napolitano’s reaction, from Fox News:

Former Senator and Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards has been indicted by a federal grand jury in North Carolina, accused of six counts–conspiracy, four counts of illegal campaign contributions, and one count of false statements. The indictment was returned Friday morning–the most dramatic step in a two year investigation into charges Edwards used campaign donations to keep his mistress out of sight during the 2008 presidential campaign.

The New York Times reports an Edwards spokeswoman said she wasn’t aware of the filing and had no immediate comment.

Developing.

Napolitano considered this to be a “classic case of the misuse of federal campaign funds” and combined with the charges of conspiracy to commit a crime, was stunned by his own conclusion:

“He’s facing two five-year charges. The evidence of guilt on both is overwhelming. He’s facing ten years in jail. In our federal system you serve 85% of the time. You’re talking eight and a half years in jail for someone who ran for President twice.”

Given the fact that even a plea deal is likely to carry a one-year jail term in their estimation, it seems as if the embarrassment Edwards already endured for his wrongdoing will not be his only punishment.

Watch the clip from Fox News below:

On Good Morning America, ABC’s Bob Woodruff said an indictment could come very soon unless Edwards agrees to a plea bargain:

A source close to the case said Edwards is aware that the government intends to seek an indictment and that the former senator from North Carolina is now considering his limited options. He could accept a plea bargain with prosecutors or face a potentially costly trial.

Edwards has been the focus of a lengthy federal investigation focusing on hundreds of thousands of dollars allegedly provided by two wealthy supporters. The government will contend those were illegal donations that ultimately went to support and seclude his mistress, Rielle Hunter.

Watch it here, from ABC News:

Ross said Edwards has hired one of Washington’s best-known lawyers, Greg Craig, in an effort–perhaps–to cut a deal and avoid jail time.

Watch it here, from ABC:

Edwards has admitted to having an affair with Hunter and fathering a daughter with her. The affair began during Edwards’ presidential campaign in 2006. Hunter worked for Edwards’ political action committee, shooting behind-the-scenes video as the Democrat prepared to launch his White House campaign.

According to former Edwards aide Andrew Young, he and his wife Cheri lived a life “on the run” to keep news of the affair from the media. The voicemails, he insists, show Edwards checked in from time to time from the campaign trail:

“This was completely John Edwards’ idea, completely John Edwards’ plan and he systematically sold me, Rielle, and my wife on this,” Young said in January 2010.

“He was integrally involved in every aspect of this,” he said in 2010. “Everything that I did, in terms of procuring money, spending money or where monies went, was done at the direction of Fred and Ed – Fred Baron and John Edwards.”

Watch the story here, from WTVD:

(UPDATE BELOW)

The Enquirer article isn’t exactly objective journalism:

“During the festive holiday getaway, the callous ex-senator introduced his children to Rielle Hunter – who had destroyed his 33-year marriage and gave birth to his love child, Frances Quinn, now 2 years old.

What’s more, The ENQUIRER learned that homewrecker Rielle made a shocking decision – to direct John’s young children to ‘Call me Mommy!’”

Still, they were right that last time and that was huge enough that outlets like the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, and the New York Post have all ventured into the muddy waters. It’s a tough choice to make. If the Enquirer’s sources close to Edwards come through again, then this will be a huge story. If not, then everyone who wrote it up will get burned.

Only time will tell how this story ends up.

Update: Gossip Cop claims that the rumors are not true:

The National Enquirer’s cover story this week claimed that just three weeks after Elizabeth Edwards passed away, the former presidential candidate proposed to Hunter.

The report quickly spread to numerous outlets.

But today a spokesperson for Edwards informs the Daily Beast, “I can tell you that it’s not true.”

“I have no idea where it’s coming from. I wouldn’t begin to speculate about the Enquirer’s sources,” says the spokesperson.

Below is a video report on the story and speculation from CBS3 in Philadelphia:

While the gender-based political attack du jour deals with the sowing end of the seed spectrum, maternity has suddenly become fertile ground for at least one candidate. At an Oklahoma gubernatorial debate last week, Rep. Mary Fallin (R-OK) touted her 6-0 childrearing advantage over opponent Lt. Governor Jari Askins (D-OK), causing cries of “Low blow!” to come sweeping down the plain. Asked what distinguished her from Askins as a candidate, Fallin replied “I think my experience is one of the things that sets me apart as a candidate for governor. First of all, being a mother, having children, raising a family.”

Askins appeared on MSNBC this morning to give her reaction.Speaking via the worst Skype connection ever, Askins points out that Fallin runs the risk of alienating many competent non-moms:

Unless she’s running on a platform that includes a Gogurt in every knapsack, it is difficult to see how the size of Fallin’s brood relates to her qualification for office. Emphasizing the importance of family is nothing new in politics, but drawing such a direct contrast with an opponent puts this firmly into the “mean girls” meme that has emerged during this election cycle.

Before conservatives rush to defend Fallin, and before liberal outrage reaches too high a pitch, it’s important to remember that this shoe was once on the foot of another prominent female politician. Early in the 2008 general election, vice presidential nominee and self-styled “Mama Grizzly” Sarah Palin faced attacks on her parenting skills from the likes of MSNBC’s Ed Schultz.

The takeaway here, then, ought to be that we should try to keep our political discourse above the belt. This latest iteration of gender politics is uncomfortable, to say the least, but it could still get worse. If races between male candidates become siring contests, look out, world. A John Edwards comeback can’t be far behind.

Awkward?

And while John Edwards himself isn’t being (legally) judged, he might be ordered to appear for testimony, according to Judge Carl Fox. As we noted before, Edwards has demanded that if he is deposed on video, the tape not be released to the public, because he hates when that happens.

Lest you think that Coulter has defiantly pitched a rainbow flag, however, she will continue as a WND columnist, and in remarks to WND, doesn’t exactly lock arms with GOProud.

Coulter took fire from gay conservatives a few years back when she used an anti-gay epithet in reference to then-candidate John Edwards. According to The Daily Caller, though, some think that Coulter has changed her stripes:

“If she can help other conservatives turn the corner on equality for gays and lesbian Americans … then more power to her,” said R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans. About Coulter’s comments three years ago: “People are allowed to evolve.”

In an update to the same piece, however, GOProud seems to disagree:

GOProud Board Chairman Christopher R. Barron issued this statement Wednesday morning: “We did not invite Ann Coulter to speak at Homocon 2010 because we believe she has ‘evolved.’”

Coulter’s response to WND doesn’t seem to suggest that she holds GOProud in any higher regard than “nuts” like the birthers:

I speak to a lot of groups and do not endorse them. I speak at Harvard and I certainly don’t endorse their views. I’ve spoken to Democratic groups and liberal Republican groups that loooove abortion. The main thing I do is speak on college campuses, which is about the equivalent of speaking at an al-Qaida conference. I’m sure I agree with GOProud more than I do with at least half of my college audiences. But in any event, giving a speech is not an endorsement of every position held by the people I’m speaking to. I was going to speak for you guys, I think you’re nuts on the birther thing (though I like you otherwise!).

If Coulter is planning to surprise Homocon’s audience with a strong show of support, however, this is exactly how she would respond.

GOProud was at the center of another conflict  earlier this year, as their inclusion at CPAC caused one speaker to protest, at which point he was booed off the stage.

Edwards, it seems, would prefer the public not view the tape. It’s worth noting this is not actually his court case. The battle of the sex tape is being waged between Hunter and former Edwards’ aide Andrew Young who penned a tell-all book about his former boss’s bad behavior earlier this year. Short version. Young has the tape in his possession, Hunter wants it back, Edwards doesn’t want the media to know his thoughts on the matter.

From ABC: “Edwards’ attorney is asking that if his deposition is videotaped that it not be released to the media unless it is shown in court and becomes public record. He’s also asking that questioning be limited to custody of the videotape.” I’m going to hazard a guess this is not going to end well.

Henneberger’s column, which is now being linked by Matt Drudge via the Washington Examiner, contains the following piece of journalism:

A journalistic colleague I had no reason to doubt told anyone who would listen that Vice President Al Gore had tried to stick his tongue down her throat out of nowhere at a New Year’s Eve party in the mid-’90s, when all she’d been expecting was a friendly peck.

While she may have no reason to doubt her anonymous colleague, there’s plenty of reason to doubt Henneberger. Several journalistic colleagues I have no reason to doubt reveal that Melinda is a demonstrable liar, so anyone reading her Gore gossip should consider themselves warned.

Henneberger’s anecdote may or may not be true, but it sure as heck isn’t journalism.

The New Republic

This new life seems pretty on-par with the lifestyle of the average Man of Leisure, ousted from a high profile job and filling his days with whimsical thoughts about “getting into law” that never really come to fruition. But a close reading of the article draws a parallel to another shamed media darling – a certain redheaded temptress known to be sporting a SCRAM anklet these days.

Getting blacklisted after making Jane Fonda wait around on the set of a flop movie isn’t exactly the same as fathering an abandoned lovechild, but besides the initial quakes that led to the crumbling of both Lindsay Lohan and John Edwards’ careers, the downward trajectory that followed both events seems strikingly similar.

Like Lohan, whose late-night club romps are now the stuff of legend, Edwards found sanctuary in the darkness of the dance floor. At the aforementioned Duke party, Edwards reportedly sipped on white wine and light beer and cut a rug to the incomparable classic “Rump Shaker” by Wreckx-n-Effect. An attendee of the party says the former politician was “just happy to be with people who weren’t going to judge him.” (Sidebar: everyone who dances to “Rump Shaker” is judged.)

And then there’s the matter of the incriminating video footage of Lohan and Edwards that only added fuel to the bonfire engulfing their careers. When the story of Edwards’ affair with Rielle Hunter broke, rumors about a sex tape quickly followed. Lohan herself has been the subject of several sex tape rumors, but it’s that now-unwatchable video from 2007 which allegedly showing her doing coke that did the most damage to her image.

The comparisons aren’t all negative: Edwards did volunteer work in El Salvador and jetted to Haiti with Lohan’s onetime party pal Sean Penn to help the post-earthquake relief effort, and she went to India to film an exposé on sex trafficking – that may or may not result in her being banned from the country. Woops!

Okay, so saying John Edwards is spiraling down the same path as Lindsay Lohan might be a stretch. But the New Republic article didn’t leave much to the imagination when describing Edwards as a lost soul with an affinity for flirting and bar hopping. And if that doesn’t sound like the description of a fallen Hollywood starlet, what does?

Shortly after the National Enquirer posted their “special investigation” Drudge picked it up and ran it as its lede story for the better part of 24 hours. Needless to say, the Drudge showcase guaranteed the story a level of attention it would not otherwise, and probably shouldn’t, have received.

With that in mind, I want to focus on something I think was missed in the our original posts, which is why the National Enquirer opted to squander the little bit of credibility they had mustered as a result of their Pulitzer Prize eligible John Edwards story, and their fairly accurate prediction of the Tiger Woods debacle, on an old, rehashed Obama affair story that has enough holes in it to drive an army of Mack trucks through.

The short answer of course is sales. Newsstand sales, and online sales, otherwise known as page views, and you can’t hit a bigger page view bonanza than a headline Drudge link. What’s interesting about this is that the Enquirer is standing by their story.

Here is an email we received yesterday from National Enquirer Web Editor Dick Siegel in response to Frances Martel’s second post about the story:

In reference to the online Medialite story which carries your [Frances Martel] by-line:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/national-enquirer-obama-story-update-retracts-hotel-surveillance-claim/

1. The ENQUIRER has NOT retracted the story
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/reports_obama_cheating_scandal_vera_baker_investigation/celebrity/68590
2. The updated story was edited for clarity and the online copy is an abridged version of the original posting
3. The reference to the hotel surveillance video you claim in your story that was omitted is in the online ENQUIRER posting
4. The full unabridged story appears in this weeks Globe magazine cover date May 10, 2010 pgs 30, 31 and 34
5. The ENQUIRER stands by its story.

Thank you,
DICK SIEGEL

National ENQUIRER Web Editor
One Park Avenue
3rd Floor
New York, NY 10016

So! The Enquirer is standing by their shadily sourced story. And I mean seriously, shadily sourced: “An ENQUIRER reporter has confirmed the limo driver’s account [the print version provides an expanded, if equally shady, anonymous account from said limo driver] of the secret 2004 rendezvous and has also learned that on-site hotel surveillance video camera footage could provide indisputable evidence to the investigation.” Yeah, that’s a pretty big could. As in it could provide evidence that campaign workers stayed in the same hotel at Barack Obama in 2004. As in, if we could get video evidence of Roswell, we might be able to prove the existence of aliens (actually, I think that may have been a NE story).

Likely the most reliable part of this entire story is that “that top anti-Obama operatives are offering more than $1 million to witnesses to reveal what they know about the alleged hush-hush affair.” Yes. I think it’s pretty much a guarantee that a whole lot of people would be willing to pay a whole lot of money for some sort of proof (video tape or otherwise) that the president is not what he says he is. Duh. In political terms it’s referred to as “opposition research.”

Interestingly (or maybe predictably), when I emailed Siegel back to ask him to comment on how the National Enquirer is following up on this story, and why the NE has suddenly decided to re-pursue it, or if we can expect the sort of photo evidence that accompanied the Edwards stories? His only response was to confirm that I had the right link to the story.

The National Enquirer currently occupies a strange place at a very strange time in journalism. As has been noted by many others, their big score on the John Edwards story elevated them to the realm of possibly believable (as opposed to grocery line time passer). And they followed this up by being proved right about Tiger Woods…by Tiger Woods, but nevertheless it was a one-two punch they could gloat over.

The differences however, between the Edwards story and this one are striking. For one, the Edwards story was happening in real time and the NE was reporting it as such. They paid to have people follow Edwards round the clock. They took pictures. A lot. And published actual photos of Edwards and Rielle and the baby, together. It was this tenacity and documentation of the facts (sordid though they were) that convinced people the NE, despite their usual fare, should be made eligible for a Pulitzer. None of these things are true here. None. Zero. However, the fact they were right that one time injects enough of a shadow of a doubt to warrant a second glance at this story (and likely make some pols just a tad nervous or a tad excited, depending) and I imagine that second glance was just what they were banking on (maybe literally).

Add to that the fact TMZ.com, the online prodigy of the type of ‘journalism’ the NE pioneered, has broken so many big stories this year, and then add to that a cable and blogosphere that often operates (aka, link baits) in innuendo and suggestion, and what you have a perfect opportunity for the National Enquirer to plunk itself once again squarely into the news cycle, generate a gazillion page views, and hope that with all this blood in the water someone will bite. And the blue dress equivalent will appear. At least that’s my suspicion. Because otherwise this story is the political equivalent to an Elvis sighting, but even less reliable.

PAGE TWO: The print version of the story.

Let me start by saying that the National Enquirer story looks to be, in my eyes at least, complete crap. It consists of an anonymously (single) sourced rumor, bolstered by the fact that people who are out to get President Obama are willing to pay $1 million to get someone to repeat said rumor on the record. Some blogs are reporting that the Enquirer has independently confirmed the account, but that’s not even what Enquirer claims. “An ENQUIRER reporter has confirmed the limo driver’s account…”

What that actually means is that they heard about the rumor, and the anonymous limo driver confirmed that he had started it. Weasel words and vapor-thin sourcing are their stock-in-trade.

Initially, the report also claimed that a surveillance tape, which showed Barack Obama and Vera Baker entering and exiting a hotel together, may exist. They have since revised their story available online to indicate that the existence of such a tape inhabits the realm of possibility, in much the same way that Sasquatch or a funny Dane Cook joke theoretically exist.

Even if such a tape were produced, it would no more prove an affair than a similar tape from the DC Marriott Wardman would prove an affair between Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey and I. Which by the way, that footage also probably exists. We’ve entered and left hotels. Stop the presses.

Suddenly, though, because the Enquirer got the Edwards thing right, there are some who think the media ought to chase the tabloid around. This misses the entire point of the media’s failure on the Edwards story, and sets a dangerous precedent.

See, there are two kinds of Enquirer stories: 1) the ones that try to make a dollar out of fifteen cents using crummy sourcing and weaselly, sensational reporting, and 2) the Edwards story. The media was right to be skeptical about the Edwards story, given the Enquirer‘s well-earned reputation. Where they slipped up was not actually reading it.

There were named sources, photographs, and solid reporting on the Edwards story that should have at least made other news organizations take a closer look, and do some reporting of their own.

The flip side to this coin is that sometimes, well-respected newspapers engage in poorly-sourced sleaze. During the 2008 presidential campaign, the New York Times ran a story in which they reported, through anonymous sources, that several of John McCain‘s staffers believed rumors of an affair between their candidate and lobbyist Vicki Isemann. They rightly caught hell for it, but stuck to their guns.

Similarly, the authors of the political tell-all Game Change included a reference to a rumored Cindy McCain affair, even after lecturing the media about attacking her during the campaign. That story also sprang from the Enquirer‘s pages, and it, too, was amplified by a powerful online news presence.

So, on any given day, you can trust the Enquirer, but not the New York Times? How do you make order from this confusion?

It’s actually pretty simple. An educated news consumer could have properly judged any one of these stories based simply on their own merits. Such judgments should be second nature, then, to those within the media. Don’t consider the source, consider the story.

Having said all of that, the fact that Matt Drudge promoted this story does have a narrow, though significant, amount of news value, particularly for a media website. In fact, it provides a wonderful opportunity to create a more educated news consumer.

Matt Drudge is a very powerful media figure, capable of drawing white-hot attention to any story, but he is not a journalist, nor does he claim to be one. As such, he doesn’t claim the responsibilities of a journalist. As Chuck Todd pointed out, it is the job of responsible journalists to exercise appropriate skepticism, to show restraint, even when it could be profitable not to do so. Also, to those who seek to minimize Drudge as a purely partisan animal, keep in mind that he did the same thing to McCain, beating the NYT by several months to the Isemann story. When you get right down to it, Drudge is a Click-o-crat.

Finally, there’s the issue of Mediaite’s coverage of this story. You might have noticed that my description of how this story should be covered doesn’t exactly match up with the way our Frances Martel initially covered it.

One of the great things about this site is the diversity of voices here. It is for this reason that I have the freedom to express my opinion about what was written here. Mediaite does a lot of original reporting, but when “re-reporting,” the emphasis will naturally tip toward opinion and analysis. While I might have concerns with the opinion and analysis in Frances’ story, as I do with many stories here and elsewhere, the last thing I want is for there to be any chill on the diversity we have achieved here. Rabid partisans already have plenty of places to go. I value the ability to agree to disagree.

As Colby Hall noted, there is nothing wrong with a media site reporting on this story, in and of itself. You’ve just read how I would have reported it. Even absent the Drudge link, the Edwards story does make the Enquirer’s political stories worthy of scrutiny. I think that Frances misplaced that scrutiny on the details of the allegations, and the potential narrative that might emerge, rather than on the merits of the Enquirer’s reporting.

Still, the freedom that Frances exercised in this story is the same freedom that allows me to write this, or to get up in Andrew Breitbart‘s grill when he’s trying to avoid a question. You don’t see Mediaite Shustering me off of Twitter at the first sign of trouble.

If you’re looking for a site that confirms what you already believe, this is probably not the place for you. If you like writers who challenge you, and at times even anger you but often make you think, then I believe you will enjoy Mediaite.

Looks like the National Enquirer Obama sex scandal is unraveling rather quickly. The latest from the paper is that “An Enquirer reporter has confirmed the limo driver’s account of the secret 2004 rendezvous.” The limo driver allegedly in the know about the affair is not a new piece of their puzzle– that claim was there last night– but in the absence of the video evidence of ambiguous age, which was the center of their report and would have been the one thing to lend them any credibility, the limo driver is the core of the story.

This clarifies that they are trying to uncover a 6-year-old maybe-affair with a testimony from the same time period, and that, rather than having footage, they just have one first-hand account of someone driving Baker to a hotel, where the President may or may not have been. The Enquirer has not made clear the changes other than adding the word “update” to the body of the report.

This also shifts the weight of the article from the story of the affair itself to the fact that, apparently, someone out there is “offering more than $1 million to witnesses to reveal what they know about the alleged hush-hush affair.” Why? If it indeed happened six years ago, and no one brought it up during Obama’s presidential campaign, what use is it now, halfway into his first term? The obvious go-to answer is that this could energize the far-right in time for the 2010 elections, but once it is revealed who perpetuated the rumors, true or not, about a story so aged, the tactic could easily backfire.

Truth or not, the story proved to be the first major test for the tabloid since it accurately reported the John Edwards affair, which restored public faith in the tabloid and resulted in the reaction to the story we saw last night. The major publicity that they elicited from that proved their one powerful foray into journalism was enough for the media to react with slightly more respect this time around given the subject at hand, and that was the reason the report surfaced here– not that the Enquirer published it, but that it had the journalistic capital, so to speak, for such a wild story to demand attention. As a news and media analyzer and curator, its our mission to report stories that are being reported. A story with this type of dubious, paper-thin accusation wouldn’t normally make the cut, but when a newly respected gossip forum reports it– and the story is reported solely because of the tabloid’s new reputation– it’s news in the media industry.

Unless they can pull out the kind of irrefutable evidence they found for the Edwards case, the Enquirer will return to their previous reputation as a salacious provider of specious rumor and innuendo, a stark difference from their recent placement alongside titles considered for a Pulitzer.

The Enquirer claims insiders have known about the scandal and are willing to pay some serious cash for the story, and they’re so sure of it that they’ve brought out the animated .gifs:

A confidential investigation has learned that Obama first became close to gorgeous 35 year-old Vera Baker in 2004 when she worked tirelessly to get him elected to the US Senate, raising millions in campaign contributions.

While Baker has insisted in the past that “nothing happened” between them, the Enquirer has learned that top anti-Obama operatives are offering more than $1 million to witnesses to reveal what they know about the alleged hush-hush affair.

The Enquirer is also promising hotel surveillance footage that could prove that Obama and Baker entered and left the hotel at the same time. “Investigators are attempting to obtain a tape from the hotel (that) shows Vera and Barack together… If the tape surfaces, it will explode the scandal.” The Enquirer does not specify the dates of the surveillance footage, which could mean they are merely touting a 6-year-old affair the Obamas and everyone around them have moved beyond it, but they could also be breaking something new. Or they are totally wrong or taking some bit of information completely out of context, which would hardly be shocking.

So that’s the kicker– whether the video evidence truly exists, and how old it really is. Yes, the fact that it is the National Enquirer reporting it makes the matter highly questionable, especially in light of their previous attempt at launching an Obama sex scandal. However, the last time the Enquirer broke a high-profile political sex scandal, many in the media were upset it didn’t win a Pulitzer Prize, which makes their claim at least worth reading over. Plus, the claim is simply too damaging for the publicity rewards to outweigh the risk of publishing such a falsehood– this isn’t exactly an Anderson Cooper adoption story– especially after the tabloid worked so hard to establish credibility over the past couple of years on this precise type of case. Somewhat adding to its credibility significance and impact is the fact that the Drudge Report, whose success is directly attributed to breaking the Monica Lewinsky story in 1998, felt confident enough in its accuracy to give it prime real estate on the site.

As Rod Blagojevich would say, let’s not jump to conclusions until we’ve had a chance to review all the tapes– after all, without them, this wouldn’t be any more credible than the latest Brangelina rumor (which, if you’re interested, is that the twins have Down Syndrome). That said, a story of this category is no longer the joke it once was in the post-Rielle Hunter world, and if this is something more than a publicity campaign on behalf of the tabloid, could prove to be problematic.

*Note: this piece has been updated since publishing

“It is not my experience that a third party wrecks a home,” Rielle Hunter told Winfrey. “I believe the problems exist before a third party comes into the picture.”

“So you don’t think you wrecked his home?” Winfrey asked Hunter.

“I do not believe I wrecked his home,” Hunter said.

We’ve made a short highlight reel, below, to catch you up in you missed what is hopefully (but doubtfully) the last chapter in the Edwards family saga.

Who: Julianna Margulies, Christine Baranski, Josh Charles, Archie Panjabi, Matt Czuchry, moderated by Matt Roush
What: “An Evening with The Good Wife”
Where: Paley Center for Media
When: April 21, 2010
Thumbs: Up

When Christine Baranski accidentally let a spoiler slip about “The Good Wife” episodes that have yet to air, the crowd reacted with a mix of laughter and discomfort. Our fellow members of the media frantically typed away on their phones or stepped outside to make what appeared to be important phone calls. And Baranski was visibly embarassed by the entire ordeal.

Baranski, without considering the implications of her comment, revealed that the main character’s husband – played by Chris Noth – moves out, to some of the audience’s delight and others’ dismay. Based on the crowd’s reaction to the news, this development seemed like a pivotal twist in the show’s story. It had the capacity to overshadow the rest of the night’s discussion. But we witnessed other (more deliberate) highlights that shouldn’t go overlooked.

Julianna Margulies is the star of this show about a family rocked by political scandal. Despite Margulies’ and the rest of the impressive cast’s years of TV experience, CBS wasn’t sure at the onset that it had a hit on its hands. Before the show got picked up and could afford to build its own courtroom set, the cast and crew shot those scenes at a courthouse in Queens. The cast seemed unfazed, though, recognizing not only the uncertainty to shows’ successes, but also what could be gleaned from being around a real courtroom; many of the actors spent time shadowing real lawyers to prepare for their roles.

It was obvious that the cast genuinely likes each other. Josh Charles, Archie Panjabi, and Matt Czuchry all had plenty to add to this panel, throwing in welcomed punchlines when applicable. Refreshingly, none of these actors seem to take themselves too seriously. Even when Baranski made her faux pas, her fellow cast members made light of the mistake. They credit the popularity of the show to the writers who brainstormed a show that keeps everyone guessing, and bracing for, what will happen next. Margulies says that people come over to her on the street and express their admiration for her character’s loyalty and devotion.

Even Elizabeth Edwards contacted CBS when the show first began to express how the show gets the character right. Margulies was quick to qualify that that call took place before the real John Edwards scandal came to light.

What They Said
“I just went online and looked at pictures of the wives before and after.”
- Julianna Margulies describes the extensive research that went into her role as a scandal-ridden wife

“I was pleasantly surprised when we killed [The Jay Leno Show] in the ratings.”
- Julianna Margulies is on Team Coco

“I found my cable show…it just happened to be on network.”
- Julianna Margulies learns it’s always in the last place you look

“What you see on television these days is episodic – formulaic with a beginning, middle and end – or reality TV.”
- Julianna Margulies is amazed by the writers’ abilities to surprise and break standard form

What We Thought

• Moderator Matt Roush did a good job combining professionalism with his own excitement over the show. With TV shows more than any other subject we cover, it takes a certain insider knowledge and personal obsession to bring out the best in the panel.
• We approve of the producers’ initial decision to cast the fallen politician as more of a Bill Clinton-type than an Eliot Spitzer.
• The show carefully intertwines elements of technology and social media into the plot of the show. This includes Twitter, Google alerts, and online polls. When Margulies punishes her children, she takes away their computers. It’s nice to find a show that tries to capture the lives of teenagers today in an honest and straightforward way.

PANEL RULES!
Some audience behavior seems to repeat itself panel after panel. We’ll be updating a running list of “PANEL RULES!” that will help ensure that you are not the dweeb of the Panel Nerds.

Panel Nerds don’t like…Stawkards
No matter how much the word “blog” has become mainstream, it still conveys a certain level of pause when you meet someone and her first words are “I run a blog.” And if you do lead with your blog, don’t follow that up with an off-hand remark that the cast shouldn’t be scared of you if you show up on their set someday. We don’t even know if you asked a question at the end of your short time with the microphone. We were just watching the panel struggle to keep half-hearted smiles on their faces while adjusting in their seats. For all our sakes, we urge you to stay off the mike next time. Also, please don’t find us.

John Edwards

CNN (via Gawker) has the explanation from James’ lawyer:

A photo recently surfaced of James wearing the German Nazi hat as he raised his right arm in a salute. The hat may have been in poor taste, but it was given to James as a gag gift by his Jewish godfather, attorney Joe Yanny said.

Possessing Nazi memorabilia does not make someone a neo-Nazi, he said.

As evidence that James is no anti-Semite, Yanny said James lived for nearly a month in an Israeli kibbutz. His lawyer would not disclose what kind of treatment the famous motorcycle designer is seeking.

Not that anyone has ever accused James (or his PR team) of hoarding intellect, but “possessing Nazi memorabilia does not make someone a neo-Nazi” is a bit of a tenuous response, especially if there is no concrete reason for owning it– “My grandfather fought in the war” would have been more acceptable, and even that is pretty bad. Also, isn’t living in a kibbutz for a month exactly what a Nazi who is trying to better understand “the enemy” do? There’s no way to win this one, especially with that line of defense.

Chances are James is simply a buffoon and it never crossed his mind that some people would be insulted by reminders of the Holocaust, joking or not. But his lawyer is only digging his hole deeper by using the famed ‘I know someone who knows someone who is of the group I just horrifically offended.’ Plus, it does nothing to erase the fact that he was caught cheating on his wife almost exactly at the same time she won an Oscar (and a Razzie), with someone is almost universally considered repulsive, at a time the gossip mill was in serious need of some new grist.

But People magazine is still Team Elizabeth, and gets Elizabeth Edwards‘ PR team’s spin reaction to the GQ Rielle Hunter interview. And the Today show dug deeper.

People reports John and Elizabeth officially split in January, and she was “just beginning to move on with her life when she read GQ‘s explosive interview with Rielle Hunter this week.” And what did she think? Well “friends” said she was “disgusted” but “still went about her day as usual.”

Meanwhile Hunter seems to have recanted a bit on her own personal outrage over the GQ pictures and reaction, telling NBC News in a statement “I understood what photos were being taken” and “I stand by this interview.” Either way, that whole “quiet dignity” thing appears to officially be a thing of the past.

And what about Andrew Young, who likes making cable TV appearances whenever he gets a chance? Norah O’Donnell reports he has “just signed with top Hollywood agent Ari Emanuel…who wants to turn his story into a movie.” Of course.

And look, Elizabeth Edwards has gone through a lot, but all you have to do is look to Game Change to get the feeling this People story has the making of a comeback for Elizabeth – and frankly, maybe even John Edwards.

There’s two Americas, folks, and in one America John, Elizabeth are teaming up with Rielle to put John Edwards on the 2016 presidential ticket, while Andrew Young thinks he’s going to be a star. Luckily, most of us live in the other America.

Here’s the Today segment:

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

In an interview with The Daily Beast, Young opened up that Hunter wasn’t the first woman his boss took back to his hotel room:

“ A lot of women,” he responded. “Well, I don’t know that there were a lot of women. There were several women that he told me about. It’s something looking back that I should have been suspicious of and like when were staying in hotels together he would go out for a ‘jog’ at two o’clock in the morning, and I would run into that more and more.”

“I’d go to knock on his door in the morning, there’d be towels stuffed underneath the door and I would hear muffled voices, or he would use my cellphone and the callback number would be some woman that I’d never heard of before,” Young continues. “There were signs there I just never paid attention to them because you know … in nine years, three times, we were running for vice president or president, and it was so chaotic, it was easy to overlook these things.”

Gawker picked up on the story, calling it “Did John Edwards Have a ‘Tiger Woods Problem’? Andrew Young Says ‘Probably’!”. And even they admit that Young is “just guessing.” But why now, when he had the last year to go around to the press and renegging on all that hush money?

Obviously triggered by Hunter’s interview in GQ, the John Edwards saga is breaking open much in the manner of Tiger Woods’ drama: As soon as one person is willing to talk, there’s a snowball effect wherein everyone wants a piece of the pie/their 15 minutes. But until other women start stepping forward – as they did with Woods – we’re going on the word of someone who is making a career out of airing Edwards’ dirty laundry, so we’ll reserve our judgment on the sex addict/golf pro analogy until then.

The spread’s signature shot is, without question, in poor taste, but it’s in comically poor taste. If you pan right-to-left, things start out fine. Hunter basks in the backlit afterglow of some recent adventure that has resulted in the wearing of a pearl necklace, staring wearily and provocatively at the camera. Things go horribly wrong, though, when you get to Barney and Kermit, who seem to be climbing over each other to get to Hunter. It’s disturbing, as evidenced by the wide-eyed pink plush toy who’s trying to hide behind Dora the Explorer. Let’s not even mention the unicorn, ok?

There is a great shot of Hunter alone on a bed, looking hungrily out of frame, that’s undeniably sexy if you remove the John Edwards subtext. Hunter herself is presented far more flatteringly than the grainy, glam-less tabloid shots we’ve seen so far. However, the aggregate effect of the shoot is definitely somewhat nauseating.

On the other hand, the underlying recklessness and poor judgement Hunter shows here are very sexy. Haven’t we all had a boyfriend or girlfriend like Rielle? You know, the one who’s a handful in everyday life, but a blast everywhere else? The one whose edgy dirty talk was usually awesome, but sometimes jumped the track and ruined the mood?

Think back to the first time you had sex on the beach, nervously looking out for cops the whole time while your partner obliviously enjoyed the experience. That was your Rielle.

If the cops showed up, you might not be so thrilled with this analogy. If the cops didn’t show, I guarantee the second time you had sex on the beach, you were the Rielle.

In this case, that impulsiveness didn’t really pay off, and good taste (the metaphoric cops) showed up to ruin the fun.

The key difference between having some great stories to tell and having your life ruined is, of course, that this kind of adventurous highwire act doesn’t work when you’ve already got a life and a family that can come crashing down with you.