Edwards 'Love Child' Story a Christmas Present from Hillary?

I debated putting this story on the blog due to the fact that so far, the only media outlet carrying it (outside of blogs and publications like Slate) is the rag that broke the story; the National Enquirer:

The woman linked to Presidential candidate John Edwards in a cheating scandal is more than six months pregnant and telling a close confidante that Edwards is the father of her unborn child, The NATIONAL ENQUIRER has learned exclusively.

The NATIONAL ENQUIRER's political bombshell comes just weeks after Edwards emphatically denied having an affair with Rielle Hunter, who formerly worked on his campaign. But The ENQUIRER has now confirmed not only that Rielle is pregnant, but she is also living in Chapel Hill, N.C. in a gated community, just a few streets away from Andrew Young, who has been a key official in Edwards' campaign.

Young has been in charge of looking after Hunter, according to sources, and she has been careful to stay out of sight during Edwards' campaign. A former Director of Operations for Edwards' campaign, Young's last official position with the campaign was North Carolina Finance Director. He left that job about a month ago — nearly the same time Rielle relocated from the New Jersey area to Chapel Hill.

In a bizarre twist, Young, a 41-year-old married man with young children, now claims HE is the father of Reille's baby.
You can see my dilemma. Do I feed the scandal mongering by publicizing the story or do I go all noble on you and not comment on it?

Perhaps we should examine the story from the standpoint of who might be leaking it. And for that, we need look no further than the man who is in the process of buying the Enquirer. Ed Morrissey explains:

AMI owns National Enquirer, as well as other tabloid gossip rags. AMI has been on the block for a while, and investor Ron Burkle of Yucaipa Cos. has been involved in making a play for AMI. Guess who just recently -- a week ago, in fact -- distanced himself from Burkle?
Last week, Bill Clinton severed all ties with Rob Burkle giving as a reason "potential conflicts of interest." Could the former president have gotten wind of this scandal coming out and distanced himself from Burkle because if it?
Or did the divestment of Yucaipa come to allow him deniability when the mudslinging hit? This has dirty political trick written all over it, and the fingerprints would not belong to Barack Obama. This could have an innocent explanation, but the coincidences appear rather convenient.
Has anyone ever bothered to ask why people who run against the Clinton's always end up getting smeared with the most spectacular scandals?

Some might argue that Hillary would be a fool to bring Edwards down because at the moment, he and Obama are splitting the anti-Hillary vote. But then, the most recent poll in Iowa shows a surprise; Edwards in front:
A new InsiderAdvantage poll in Iowa shows John Edwards leading among likely caucus-goers with 30% support, followed by Sen. Hillary Clinton at 26% and Sen. Barack Obama at 24%.

This is the first poll to show Edwards ahead of his rivals since summer.

Key finding: Edwards holds a significant advantage "among a group who could be key to the first contest of the presidential year: those who say their first choice is someone other than the top three. Under Iowa Democratic Party rules, candidates who poll less than 15 percent in the first vote at each caucus around the state are eliminated, and their supporters get a second chance to vote for another candidate."
I'd say that's a pretty good reason to bring Edwards down a peg or two.

The media will eventually be forced to cover this story if for no other reason than it is getting tremendous play on the internet. But that doesn't make it true. Nor does the Clinton connection to Burkle mean anything definitive.

But it is still an interesting coincidence.
I debated putting this story on the blog due to the fact that so far, the only media outlet carrying it (outside of blogs and publications like Slate) is the rag that broke the story; the National Enquirer:

The woman linked to Presidential candidate John Edwards in a cheating scandal is more than six months pregnant and telling a close confidante that Edwards is the father of her unborn child, The NATIONAL ENQUIRER has learned exclusively.

The NATIONAL ENQUIRER's political bombshell comes just weeks after Edwards emphatically denied having an affair with Rielle Hunter, who formerly worked on his campaign. But The ENQUIRER has now confirmed not only that Rielle is pregnant, but she is also living in Chapel Hill, N.C. in a gated community, just a few streets away from Andrew Young, who has been a key official in Edwards' campaign.

Young has been in charge of looking after Hunter, according to sources, and she has been careful to stay out of sight during Edwards' campaign. A former Director of Operations for Edwards' campaign, Young's last official position with the campaign was North Carolina Finance Director. He left that job about a month ago — nearly the same time Rielle relocated from the New Jersey area to Chapel Hill.

In a bizarre twist, Young, a 41-year-old married man with young children, now claims HE is the father of Reille's baby.
You can see my dilemma. Do I feed the scandal mongering by publicizing the story or do I go all noble on you and not comment on it?

Perhaps we should examine the story from the standpoint of who might be leaking it. And for that, we need look no further than the man who is in the process of buying the Enquirer. Ed Morrissey explains:

AMI owns National Enquirer, as well as other tabloid gossip rags. AMI has been on the block for a while, and investor Ron Burkle of Yucaipa Cos. has been involved in making a play for AMI. Guess who just recently -- a week ago, in fact -- distanced himself from Burkle?
Last week, Bill Clinton severed all ties with Rob Burkle giving as a reason "potential conflicts of interest." Could the former president have gotten wind of this scandal coming out and distanced himself from Burkle because if it?
Or did the divestment of Yucaipa come to allow him deniability when the mudslinging hit? This has dirty political trick written all over it, and the fingerprints would not belong to Barack Obama. This could have an innocent explanation, but the coincidences appear rather convenient.
Has anyone ever bothered to ask why people who run against the Clinton's always end up getting smeared with the most spectacular scandals?

Some might argue that Hillary would be a fool to bring Edwards down because at the moment, he and Obama are splitting the anti-Hillary vote. But then, the most recent poll in Iowa shows a surprise; Edwards in front:
A new InsiderAdvantage poll in Iowa shows John Edwards leading among likely caucus-goers with 30% support, followed by Sen. Hillary Clinton at 26% and Sen. Barack Obama at 24%.

This is the first poll to show Edwards ahead of his rivals since summer.

Key finding: Edwards holds a significant advantage "among a group who could be key to the first contest of the presidential year: those who say their first choice is someone other than the top three. Under Iowa Democratic Party rules, candidates who poll less than 15 percent in the first vote at each caucus around the state are eliminated, and their supporters get a second chance to vote for another candidate."
I'd say that's a pretty good reason to bring Edwards down a peg or two.

The media will eventually be forced to cover this story if for no other reason than it is getting tremendous play on the internet. But that doesn't make it true. Nor does the Clinton connection to Burkle mean anything definitive.

But it is still an interesting coincidence.