Queasy yet oddly appealing (UPDATED)... and (UPDATED again)

Originally, we weren’t going to comment on the John Edwards affair affair as the players surrounding the whole sordid episode have become as big as the story themselves but there were a couple of things that did jump out at us as we were making the internet rounds… First, from Ann Althouse:

"Imagine if he'd gotten the nomination. What a selfish bastard — to run for the nomination while parading his cancerous wife about and knowing that if he won this story could have come out at any time — maybe in October — screwing up his party's chances!"

Well, the outrage isn’t just limited to just Edwards but extends to Edwards’ wife, Elizabeth who apparently knew about the affair back in ’06 when Edwards came clean to her. This, from Lee Stranahan, a former Edwards supporter writing over at HuffPo:

"...if you're an Edwards supporter, let me put this bluntly; if you gave John and Elizabeth Edwards time, money, support, or goodwill, they played you.

They made a conscious decision to make their relationship a focus throughout the campaign. That emotional goodwill you feel for them? They not only let you feel, they took actions and made statements specifically so you would feel it.

Then when the rumors first surfaced, they made the worst decision of all; they decided to lie about it and to keep lying about it for months. They lied in a way that made the people who were telling the truth look like the real liars. They lied in a way that turned their supporters into attack dogs. They only started to tell the truth when John Edwards was caught at the Beverly Hills Hilton and even now both John and Elizabeth Edward are calling the people who caught him the liars. That's the definition of shameless."


And with the perceived lack of effort the main stream media has pursued this story, originally, there is the obligatory “What if he were a Republican?” Well, we know that answer, don’t we? Republicans don’t even have to have an affair for one to be insinuated. See: New York Times and John McCain.

UPDATE #1:Because we’re laughing our rear off at KT’s comment which was in reference to some digging that B-Daddy did, we’re liberating the subject email from L.A. Times editor Tony Pierce to the paper's bloggers putting the kibosh on any mention of Edwards’ affair. From the Kausfiles:

From: "Pierce, Tony"
Date: July 24, 2008 10:54:41 AM PDT
To: [XXX]
Subject: john edwards
Hey bloggers,
There has been a little buzz surrounding John Edwards and his alleged affair. Because the only source has been the National Enquirer we have decided not to cover the rumors or salacious speculations. So I am asking you all not to blog about this topic until further notified.
If you have any questions or are ever in need of story ideas that would best fit your blog, please don't hesitate to ask
Keep rockin,
Tony

Keep rockin’….?

Tony Pierce is that guy.

(UPDATE #2): To follow-up on B-Daddy's contention that the MSM blew-it, here's the NYT's ombudsman, Clark Hoyt with a, "umm... we wuz worked"...

"I would not have published the allegation of a McCain affair, because The Times did not convincingly establish its truth. I would not have recycled the National Enquirer story, either. But I think it was a mistake for Times editors to turn up their noses and not pursue it. “There was a tendency, fair or not, to dismiss what you read in the National Enquirer,” Keller said. “I know they are sometimes right.” When the Enquirer published its first “love child” report, The Times was going energetically after the McCain story. It should have pursued the other story as well."