My Pretty Pony finally copped to his lies on the same Friday the Olympics started and Russia killed 2,000 civilians. He was so hoping for 'below the fold' on this one. And if you could stomach his smarm with Bob Woodruff, all you got was a reminder about how everything is all about him. He now has to make sure the terminally ill Mrs. Edwards is on the Edwards bandwagon:
Edwards declares "it's not possible that [Rielle Hunter's] child could be mine," adding that he's "happy" to take a paternity test and "truly hopeful that a test will be done." The next day Rielle Hunter's lawyer says "Rielle will not participate in DNA testing." Are you buying this? For one thing, if Edwards is really certain he isn't the father of the kid, wouldn't he have demanded a paternity test to clear his name, not just indicated his hope for a test? ... Too late to change the tone now! P.S.-Story #2 is Elizabeth's too: Note also that it's not just John Edwards denying his paternity, it's his wife Elizabeth. In her Kos post she writes: Because of a recent string of hurtful and absurd lies in a tabloid publication, because of a picture falsely suggesting that John was spending time with a child it wrongly alleged he had fathered outside our marriage, our private matter could no longer be wholly private. Shouldn't she be demanding a paternity test? ... If Story #2 unravels and turns into Cover up #2, will it have been a cover up of which Elizabeth has now been an active (if not necessarily knowing) promoter?Here's a lot about how the mainstream media ran painfully obvious cover for Edwards:
The Edwards mess is the most recent and visible, but hardly unique, example of the mainstream media’s hear no evil/see no evil approach to newsgathering. How many other stories has the MSM missed, denied or avoided? From Rathergate to Reverend Wright to the success of the surge, the pattern is the same: MSM stalls, shuffles its collective feet, and doggedly ignores information for as long as possible until they can no longer do so with a straight face. The fact that these stories without exception work to the detriment of Democrats is apparently a grand coincidence. And the notion that they are upholding some “journalistic standard” is rendered absurd.
Edwards’ story wasn’t important on Thursday, but it was on Friday because he confessed? No, the level of proof changed, but the story’s relevance did not. If it wasn’t worthy of investigation before the ABC interview then it was unworthy of mention afterwards. Their explanation for their editorial decision-making is no more credible than . . . well than Edwards himself.