John Edwards Update: The Silky Pony And His Foal

Back on July 30th, I wrote,

……..Which brings us to the Democratic National Convention next month.

Certainly John Edwards would have been expected to speak prior to the Rielle Hunter affair breaking publicly and with Edwards denying it, the MSM covering it up, and the lefty bloggers defending him, you’ve got to wonder if he’ll still speak?

Now, your first thought would probably be, “There’s no way he ends up at the Democratic National Convention!” However, if he doesn’t speak, it’s tantamount to an admission that the story is true. After all, what other legitimate reason would he have to miss the convention?

Sure, if Edwards goes, it could be a debacle, but if he doesn’t, he has to tell his cancer stricken wife that he was running around on her, his absence will be a story in and of itself, and his political career, at least for the next decade or so until the story goes down the memory hole, is over.

So, what is the Breck Girl going to do? Does he suck it up and demand to be allowed to speak in Denver or does he slink away into political obscurity and shame? Time will tell.

Well, lo and behold, after yet another National Enquirer story that featured pics of the Silky Pony with his foal, there are Democrats publicly saying the same thing I did last month,

Former Sen. John Edwards might have to move quickly to save his spot on the national stage.

With two weeks before their national convention, several prominent Democrats are saying Edwards must publicly address anonymously sourced National Enquirer stories that claim he had an affair with a campaign worker and fathered her baby.

Democrats gather in Denver on Aug. 25 and Edwards, as the 2004 vice presidential nominee and a presidential candidate who won delegates this year, ordinarily would be a speaker.

Instead some Democrats say convention organizers will try to avoid the lingering questions if Edwards himself doesn’t talk.

“He absolutely does have to [resolve it]. If it’s not true, he has to issue a stronger denial,” said Gary Pearce, the Democratic strategist who ran Edwards’ 1998 Senate race. “It’s a very damaging thing. … The big media has tried to be responsible and handle this with kid gloves, but it’s clearly getting ready to bust out. If it’s not true, he’s got to stand up and say, ‘This is not true. That is not my child and I’m going to take legal action against the people who are spreading these lies.’ It’s not enough to say, ‘That’s tabloid trash.’ ”

…Presidential candidates who lose in the primaries traditionally are invited to address their party’s convention, and Politico reported last month that Edwards told others he was promised a primetime speaking slot when he endorsed Sen. Barack Obama. If Edwards fails to clear up the story in short order, he risks party officials deciding not to have him speak or, if they do, creating a distraction from a week focused on Obama accepting the nomination.

“If there is not an explanation that’s satisfactory, acceptable and meets high moral standards, the answer is ‘no,’ he would not be a prime candidate to make a major address to the convention,” said Don Fowler of Columbia, S.C., a former Democratic National Committee chair.

Edwards’ political currency, which is his value as a public speaker and advocate, declines each day the story goes unresolved, Fowler and other Democratic strategists said.

Incidentally, that story is from the News and Observer, one of few smaller papers that is actually covering the story. A quick check of Google News shows no coverage from the LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, etc., etc., etc.

From my perspective, I think that’s great because we’ll be pointing to the cover-up of this story in the MSM for YEARS to come as a perfect example of media bias. This is a huge story and it’s everywhere on the net, but if you’re reading the supposedly unbiased, professional MSM outlets, you know nothing about it because they’re trying to protect their boy. Not only is it proof that the mainstream media is heavily biased to the left, it shows why you have to read blogs: because the MSM will hide the truth from you if they think it hurts “their side” — AKA as liberals.

Speaking of cover-ups, there’s another very intriguing part of this story that hasn’t been fully explored yet. According to the Enquirer, Rielle Hunter has been getting paid $15,000 a month by a wealthy pal of John Edwards. Is it possible that is just a cover and Edwards is paying him back or funneling the money to him that Edwards originally received through his campaign? Also, another man with Edwards’ campaign, a married man, Andrew Young has claimed to be the father. Did Edwards convince him to lie publicly? Did he get any favors in return? Also, Rielle Hunter worked for the campaign as well. Was that pre or post-affair? It’s bad enough to hire an employee and cheat on your cancer stricken wife with her, but using money contributed to you to hire that same woman to work for your campaign so you’ll have easy access to her is another thing indeed. Oh, there are so many details of the cover-up to explore and that old saying you’ve heard so many times, “It’s not the crime, it’s the cover-up,” tends to be so very, very true.

Also, another thought: how did the Enquirer get those photos of Edwards inside the hotel room? You have to think a spy camera was put in place before he got there, right? Now, here’s the $24,000 question: how did the Enquirer get there before Edwards? Maybe it’s just really good footwork or maybe, just maybe, like with the Frank Gifford/Suzen Johnson affair, the woman decided to take a payoff.

If Rielle Hunter has decided to send the Silky Pony off to the glue factory and intends to make as much money as she can off a book before she sues him for child support — which may or may not be the case — the big MSM outlets will look even more foolish for not covering the story. That would be just desserts.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend