With just two weeks to the Iowa caucuses, the National Enquirer is reporting that John Edwards had an affair with one of his staffers, resulting in her pregnancy. The woman reportedly is in hiding, but the Enquirer claims to have statements from the woman's friends and an email trail. (The Enquirer previously reported, on Oct. 22, that Edwards had been involved in an affair, without naming the woman; it's new story names her. She denies that Edwards is the father of her child.)Although the Enquirer is nothing more than a supermarket tabloid, it doesn't just make up stories, and typically requires fairly vigorous verification of its claims. Certainly, the Enquirer wouldn't want to go to press with a story like this against a very accomplished trial attorney without some plausible evidence.
Now the Edwards campaign faces a nightmare scenario--whether the claim is true or false, it could dominate the headlines for at least the next few days. And if Edwards denies the charge, the race will be on to prove him a liar. If true, then Edwards' campaign is over.
What could this do to the Democratic race? It could re-shuffle the deck, certainly in Iowa. It may help Obama: Edwards' supporters, in the short run at least, are likely to suspect Hillary's campaign--fairly or unfairly--for planting the story. In the long run, however, it may help Hillary. Our gut tells us that in a two-way race with Obama, Hillary is going to win. It may take awhile, but we think her superior organization, and a sense among Democrats nationwide that Obama is a bit of a risk, will propel her to the top.
The nightmare scenario for Clinton's campaign--one that had real potential--was to come in third in Iowa, behind Edwards. The Enquirer's story could make that a whole lot less likely now. The next week will be quite telling.
3 comments:
You're citing the National Enquirer? Really?
Did you really write that the Enquirer "doesn't just make up stories, and typically requires fairly vigorous verification of its claims"?
Do you expect to be taken any more seriously than, say, the Enquirer?
We had a friend who worked for the Enquirer and they had strict requirements for verification of stories. They absolutely don't make things up--like some supermarket tabloids.
That said, the way they report stories is obviously salacious, and their standards for what they will print, based on what evidence are certainly different than the major national newspapers. Their source is a friend of the woman in question, and the friend apparently has emails from the woman on the subject. That still doesn't make it true. But it's how a lot of these stories unravel.
Post a Comment