Comments on: LA Times blog editor Tony Pierce responds to criticism about National Enquirer story

By: Timesobserver

Timesobserver — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 23:22:25 +0000

This is a great article that takes a good look into the editorial decisions made at the L.A. Times.

I’m not sure if there was any type of bias on the L.A. Times part, because I can see where they are coming from.

However, because the only source to the Edwards’ affair at the time came from the N.E., that shouldn’t restrict a blogger from commenting on the incident.

By: Stajack

Stajack — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 21:47:23 +0000

Tony Pierce. Dem hack. Period.

By: Mark Brant

Mark Brant — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:08:49 +0000

You have got to be kidding. A person in the news business making a “semantics” slip. No, let me tell you what really happened. Mr. wandering dick called the Times and called in some favors. Maybe he introduced one of the writers there to another humping starlet who wanted a monthly check…and, they bought it. They let this sorry SOB, who has a sick wife and children…get away with what in any other situtation: if that person were a Christian or a Republican or a conservative: would have plastered it all over every front page that they could find. This is just an affirmation of the Times bias, and willingness to allow someone in their political camp behave as promiscuously as they want to with no honest reporting or notice. Shame on you Mr. Pierce.

By: Braden

Braden — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 01:45:01 +0000

I do not buy his “story” at all. The bottom line is he was caught, and now he’s basically saying he was “told” to send the email out.

Yeah right. I was born at night, but it wasn’t last night.

By: Jonathan E.

Jonathan E. — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 01:33:58 +0000

Well, Ben above is right: I am dumb. So much for dot-connecting: sorry to Matt and Tony. FWIW, I think Tony’s getting a bit of a bad rap here.

By: Bithead

Bithead — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:08:07 +0000

We only recently *made* the news!

It works that fast these days?
[/snark]

Congrats, Matt.

Does he even matter?

Well, an interesting story about that. Letâ€™s remember that the National Enquirer is home to a large number of Hillary Clinton supporters, not least among them David Kendall. So conceptually, Hillary Clintonâ€™s fingerprints are all over that one at the off. But the reason behind such a move may not be apparent to the casual observerâ€¦ and frankly, it wasnâ€™t until last night that this occurred to me; Iâ€™m somewhat annoyed at myself for not seeing this earlier.

John Edwards had all the endorsements of the various unions wrapped up, before he dropped out. Most of these are unions, the rank and file of which have shown some reluctance to vote for the â€œBlackâ€ guy.

(I put black in quotes because of course Obama is half-whiteâ€¦ but I digress..)

Obama chosing Edwards as a VP at that point would have been a no-brainer, and likley would have been enough to at least cause McCain some serious trouble in the general election. Edwards would ahve brought the union voter along with him. With the scandal though, Edwards is a less attractive candidate to say the very least, thus lowering the chances of Hillary Clinton gaining the White House. So, the National Enquirer offered up this storyâ€¦ true or not, it has the desired effect. And, for the record, I consider it true. So much for Union support for Obama.

So where does this leave us? It leaves Obama with one less obvious choice for VP for one thing, it leaves him without union backing, barring anyone else in that position that the Unions will rally to, sice theyâ€™re clearly less than inclined to rally around Obama himselfâ€¦ and it leaves Hillry Clinton in a position once again to be taken seriously as a VP candidate. Else, it leaves Hillary Clinton in a position to be running against a Republican incumbancy.

By: abberant

abberant — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:10:08 +0000

Wait, I forget…

Is John Edwards still running for president?

Is he still a U.S. senator?

Does he even matter?