The MSM justify banner coverage of the smallest malfeasance by any Christian or conservative, with or without independent verification, with the lame excuse of "hypocrisy." Hey, why didn't you say so! If all it takes to get the Edwards story into the establishment press is a little hypocrisy, boy, have I got a story for you!
Based on information currently saturating the Internet: (1) The entire schmaltzy Edwards campaign consisted of this self-professed moralist telling us how much he loved the poor and loved his cancer-stricken wife; (2) the following was Edwards' response to CBS News anchor Katie Couric's question about whether voters should care if a presidential candidate is faithful to his spouse:
"Of course. I mean, for a lot of Americans -- including the family that I grew up with, I mean, it's fundamental to how you judge people and human character -- whether you keep your word, whether you keep what is your ultimate word, which is that you love your spouse, and you'll stay with them. ... I think the most important qualities in a president in today's world are trustworthiness -- sincerity, honesty, strength of leadership. And -- and certainly that goes to a part of that."
There you have it, boys: Go to town, MSM!
Not sure that the media has "gone to town" on this story. News outlets such as the New York Times are reporting the affair thusly:
"John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina and presidential candidate, admitted publicly Friday to an extramarital affair, but said he did not father a child out of wedlock."
Is it me or does this statement have an "incidental" tone to it? It's as if they're still trying to insist he's a moral person because he didn't have a child out of wedlock with the woman he had an affair with!
Of course, that would also mean you'd have to believe John Edwards' "excruciatingly personal" statement.
And why should we?
UPDATE: (9:40pm EST) The AP is already referring to Rielle Hunter as an "ex-mistress"...what proof, exactly, do they have of that? If the three-month old child is not his, and she's an "ex-mistress" - why is he visiting her in a Beverly Hills hotel room? Clearly the AP believes his statement that the affair took place only in 2006. But he's lied through this whole process and there's no reason for me to believe that she is an "ex-mistress."