Thus speaketh DIO, keeper of future events.
It’s my business if it involves the VP role. If it bothers you, right his name in.
It doesn’t involve the VP role. Edwards was never even a frontrunner for that. The rumors were that he wanted the AG spot. That’s probably out now too, though.
For some reason you are not picking up on how difficult this would be - and he’s clearly not going to do it, regardless.
To win a suit against the paper, he would have to prove the picture is false and the child isn’t his, and then he’d have to prove they “deliberately” ran it despite knowing it’s false, and harmed his reputation by doing so.
He says he’s willing to take a paternity test, but Hunter says it’s not happening. So I don’t see how in the world he would prove anything the paper said is false. He might be able to prove that’s not him in the picture, but in the grand scheme of things that doesn’t mean anything.
How is she being defamed here?
The bottom line is that Edwards isn’t going to sue here. He has nothing to gain by doing so, particularly because he wouldn’t win, and if tests proved the child is his, things would get even worse. For now, whatever the truth is, it seems he is publicly off the hook about being the father unless Hunter changes her mind.
Again, thus speaketh DIO, keeper of future events. You have a really bad habit of making definitive statements about things you know nothing about.
You’re the one who decided he was a VP candidate. From everything that’s been written and reported, he was not on the shortlist, didn’t want it and had expressly said he wants the AG spot instead.
Yah, I just invented that he was being considered for it. :rolleyes:
There is no evidence he was being considered for it.
Ok, an undisclosed source says he was on a deep list two months ago. There’s no reason to believe he was ever seriously considered (and we don’t acually KNOW that he was considered at all), he was not one of the names on the reputed shortlist, and like I said, all the scuttlebutt was that he was in line for AG, not VP.
Having said all that, I still don’t see how having (maybe) once been considered as a remote possibility for a VP choice makes this story newsworthy.
Did you read the cite? The source was disclosed-- it was Caroline Kennedy and Eric Holder (Obama’s VP vetting team), via Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick of Michigan
Can you cite this short list?
Can you quote the part of my link where it says he was once (maybe) a remote possibility? It says he’s on the list. Period.
This is a stuoid thing to argue about. He wasn’t one of the serious choices, but even if he had been, he’s not now, so it’s all moot. He remains a private citizen whose sex life is no more newsworthy than mine.
I guess it’s only stupid to argue about it when you’re wrong. And since you were not being considered for anything, nobody cares about your sex life.
Then you shouldn’t argue about it. When you cheat on your wife, it shows up on the evening news multiple nights, and you make a “heartfelt confession” on air, then your sex life will have proven to be newsworthy. But Edwards is public figure who would more than likely try and run for president again if he had the chance. Like it or not, his extra-marital sex life is newsworthy.
It’s no more newsworthy than Paris Hilton’s latest fuck video.
That is simply factually incorrect. It’s being reported in the news, people are paying attention to it, ergo it’s newsworthy. In fact, I just watch a segment on PBS’s New Hour on this subject.
People pay attention to Paris Hilton sex videos too. More people, probably.
Paying attention to a pair of tits is not the same thing as a newsworthy story. Paris Hilton wasn’t on the PBS Jim Lehrer News Hour, John Edwards was.
That’s exactly my own point.
Yeeesh, Diogenes! Open a new thread to argue over when events are newsworthy so the issue can be hashed out in excruciating detail rather than nitpickunbg this thread to death.