The Clinton Sex-Scandal Progression

Kaus previewed the pattern the other day.

We all know this playbook from the Clinton Impeachment Wars.

I’m assuming we’re reaching the next-to-final stage of the natural progression in cases like this: 1) Too horrible and shocking; it can’t possibly be true; 2) It’s not true; 3) You can’t prove it’s true; 4) Why are you trying to prove it’s true? 5) It’s disgusting that you’ve proved it’s true; 6) What’s the big deal anyway?

I'm always stunned by the rapid transformation to step 6. If it was no big deal in the first place, why the fuck were you denying it so vehemently and tearing into people for suggesting such a "no big deal" of a thing?

That's from Allah, with a lot of thoughts. He links Spruiell making this kinda-obvious point, but Spruiell has at least made it official by checking the calendar:

Elizabeth Edwards was diagnosed with incurable cancer in late March of 2007. Rielle Hunter’s baby was born in late February of 2008. That means that if Edwards is the father, he was definitely still carrying on the affair with Hunter after he knew his wife’s cancer was back.

Yes, he's almost certainly lying. Will the Committee to Protect Elizabeth now move on to blocking any inquiry into the child's paternity and Edwards' "friends'" "possible" payoffs of Rielle Hunter?

Look, Elizabeth Edwards still needs lots of protecting. Even more so now, if you think about it.

We can't expect the MSM to leave the field of battle before the war is actually won. They only suggest that course of action in actual wars.

OPERATION PROTECT ELIZABETH

Never leave a fellow liberal soldier behind, and never stop fighting until the battle is won. The campaign continues.

"All the News That Doesn't Harm Elizabeth Edwards"

I really can't fucking believe the media is now deciding whether to report big stories of national scope based on whether someone they like might be distressed by their reportage.

Of course I can believe it; I have to believe it. It's what they're doing, obviously.

I guess the New York Times didn't like Cindy McCain all that much when it reported on McCain's non-affair with his non-paramour.

Should media organizations be required to disclose which people they "like" and wish to "protect," and which people they "don't like" and "don't wish to protect," so that we might know beforehand where their biases may lie?

Seems like a bona fide conflict of interest, more so than many others. If the media is in the tank for Elizabeth Edwards, we need to know that, in order to properly evaluate their coverage of her husband.

National Enquirer Editor Cries Bullshit: David Perel, editor of the NE, is on FoxNews now... Or was fifteen minutes ago. All he said there was that Edwards' claims "don't ring true."

Stace says that on Hannity he went beyond that and said that Edwards was the father, and promises "more to come," but not having heard that, I can't confirm it.

From what I heard, he's simply saying "this is almost certainly pure bullshit" like the rest of us are.

We'll see what other pictures he has.

Big Question: And an important one.

Did the Democratic Party force Edwards to confess, or was it the threat of Brian Ross' coming report on ABCNews?

It matters. If it's the former, than the MSM chose to let the Democratic Party sort out its house on its own schedule, being so kind-hearted as to allow them to take care of their business without media intrusion. Only once the Democratic Party had decided Edwards' had to come clean did the media begin reporting (and only because Edwards himself came forward).

Which is called collusion.

posted by Ace at 04:01 PM

| Access Comments