The National Enquirer at it again....

[keaggy220]

Could it be true? I think most men with an ego big enough to have the desire to be President are susceptible to infidelity. If the Enquirer successfully pins this on him, like they did Edwards, while the MSM sit around and do nothing again, it will be less of an embarrassment to the Obama's than to the MSM.

Overall I think it would be a great opportunity for Michelle to go on Oprah and shed a tear. It would make her more personable. Of course while on the show she declares how this affair has made them stronger, blah, blah, blah...

OBAMA CHEATING SCANDAL: SHOCKING NEW REPORTS

UPDATED: Reports out of Washington, DC: PRESIDENT OBAMA in a shocking cheating scandal after being caught in a Washington, DC Hotel with a former campaign aide.

A confidential investigation has learned that Obama first became close to gorgeous 35 year-old VERA BAKER in 2004 when she worked tirelessly to get him elected to the US Senate, raising millions in campaign contributions

Now, the investigators are searching for a hotel surveillance videotape.

While Baker has insisted in the past that "nothing happened" between them, reports reveal that top anti-Obama operatives are offering more than $1 million to witnesses to reveal what they know about the alleged hush-hush affair.

Among those being offered money is a limo driver who says in 2004 that he took Vera to a secret hotel rendezvous in where Obama was staying.

An ENQUIRER reporter has confirmed the limo driver's account of the secret 2004 rendezvous and has also learned that on-site hotel surveillance video camera footage could provide indisputable evidence to the investigation.

DEVELOPING STORY

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/reports ... rity/68590

[Madame]

Good Lord!

Sadly, there is a wide audience for these tabloids who believe the salacious stories.

[keaggy220]

Good Lord!

Sadly, there is a wide audience for these tabloids who believe the salacious stories.

I'm not sure if you're aware, but The National Enquirer broke the Edwards story while the MSM completely ignored it. The National Enquirer was nominated for a Pulitzer for their excellent investigative reporting, but sadly was ignored by the committee .

I watched a show over the weekend that had a panel of evenly split conservatives and liberals and they all agreed that if either the NYT's or The Washington Post broke the Edwards story a Pulitzer would've been awarded.

The latest statistic I've heard is that 45% of married men cheat at one point or another... I've got to think it's higher for men of power and great ambition.

[Chalkperson]

The Daily Mail in the UK had this story/rumor/smear in October 2008...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... -wife.html

[Madame]

Good Lord!

Sadly, there is a wide audience for these tabloids who believe the salacious stories.

I'm not sure if you're aware, but The National Enquirer broke the Edwards story while the MSM completely ignored it. The National Enquirer was nominated for a Pulitzer for their excellent investigative reporting, but sadly was ignored by the committee .

I watched a show over the weekend that had a panel of evenly split conservatives and liberals and they all agreed that if either the NYT's or The Washington Post broke the Edwards story a Pulitzer would've been awarded.

The latest statistic I've heard is that 45% of married men cheat at one point or another... I've got to think it's higher for men of power and great ambition.

Even a blind pig finds an acorn from time to time.

I think it's gross that the Enquirer is even eligible for the Pulitzer. As a publication, it's filled with trash. And its false stories hurt people. It has been sued successfully by Carol Burnett, Kate Hudson, and Gary Condit's wife.

They'll stop at nothing, nobody's off limits, and their bogus story about Elizabeth Smart's family and the resultant fire-storm between it and the Salt Lake Tribune showed just how low journalistic ethics had dropped.

Their headlines are also misleading -- look at this one:



And buried in the midst of the article is this statement:

BRAD PITT and ANGELINA JOLIE's heartbreaking new family crisis - tormented by speculation their 21-month-old twins are suffering from Down syndrome.

The Hollywood superstars are grappling with online chatter about babies Knox and Vivienne, and bloggers say the children appear to have the developmental disorder.

Children with the Down syndrome genetic disorder are detected by developmental delays -- physical characteristics, include rounded face, flattened profiles and upward slanted eyes.

And it's those descriptions that have sparked the false online speculation.

"Brad and Angie would subtly try to degstimatize the issue by not hiding them," a close family friend said.

[keaggy220]

The Daily Mail in the UK had this story/rumor/smear in October 2008...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... -wife.html

Interesting... Could be a smear among fellow liberals.

I personally think it could help Obama and Michelle just like it did Bill Clinton and Hillary.

[keaggy220]

Good Lord!

Sadly, there is a wide audience for these tabloids who believe the salacious stories.

I'm not sure if you're aware, but The National Enquirer broke the Edwards story while the MSM completely ignored it. The National Enquirer was nominated for a Pulitzer for their excellent investigative reporting, but sadly was ignored by the committee .

I watched a show over the weekend that had a panel of evenly split conservatives and liberals and they all agreed that if either the NYT's or The Washington Post broke the Edwards story a Pulitzer would've been awarded.

The latest statistic I've heard is that 45% of married men cheat at one point or another... I've got to think it's higher for men of power and great ambition.

Even a blind pig finds an acorn from time to time.

I think it's gross that the Enquirer is even eligible for the Pulitzer. As a publication, it's filled with trash. And its false stories hurt people. It has been sued successfully by Carol Burnett, Kate Hudson, and Gary Condit's wife.

They'll stop at nothing, nobody's off limits, and their bogus story about Elizabeth Smart's family and the resultant fire-storm between it and the Salt Lake Tribune showed just how low journalistic ethics had dropped.

Their headlines are also misleading -- look at this one:



And buried in the midst of the article is this statement:

BRAD PITT and ANGELINA JOLIE's heartbreaking new family crisis - tormented by speculation their 21-month-old twins are suffering from Down syndrome.

The Hollywood superstars are grappling with online chatter about babies Knox and Vivienne, and bloggers say the children appear to have the developmental disorder.

Children with the Down syndrome genetic disorder are detected by developmental delays -- physical characteristics, include rounded face, flattened profiles and upward slanted eyes.

And it's those descriptions that have sparked the false online speculation.

"Brad and Angie would subtly try to degstimatize the issue by not hiding them," a close family friend said.

Sure, their celebrity reporting is the money maker and it's all a game anyway...

Even the liberals on the panel from the show I saw gave credit where it was due - The National Enquirer broke and pursued one of the most important stories of the past three years while the MSM sat around and did nothing about it.

Could this be happening again? Who knows? It will be interesting to see how it unfolds.

[piston]

Always dangerous for democracy, these presumed sex scandals. How not to worry, not about what Obama is alleged to have done during a single night in 2005, but political opponents throwing millions at any presumed witness?

Here's another take on sex scandals, from a country that has long been expected to make its transition to democracy:

New York, April 30 (ANI): This one is straight out of James Bond film 'From Russia with Love,' in which the Soviet lay "honey trap" on the super spy, using a sexy seductress.

A woman known as "Katya" has been luring Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's critics into having sex with her and making their videos.

Her latest victim is satirist Viktor Shenderovich, whose sex tape has surfaced on the net.

Shenderovich, who is a married man, writes for a popular TV program that uses clowns to mock Prime Minister Putin and his associates.

He revealed that "Katya", a woman in 20s, pretending to be a journalist lured him to a Moscow apartment.

"She made it clear that she was interested in me as a man. I should have realized this was some sort of danger sign," the New York Post quoted him as saying.

Also, videos of two extremist dissidents - Eduard Limonov and Alexander Potkin- having sex with "Katya" have emerged.

Potkin, 33, who is married said: "Now you see that there are no guarantees of having your private life protected."

Now, more anti-Putin front men, such as Yury Shevchuk, from a popular Russian rock group, DDT, and Ilya Yashin, a leader of the Solidarity opposition group, fear their videos will also surface.

Yashin claims that he enjoyed a romp with Katya in 2008 after meeting her through a Russian social network.

She apparently invited him for a threesome with her female roommate, a model named Nastya, using sex toys and handcuffs.

However, Yashin said he left the apartment when she offered him cocaine. He said he asked her if he was being taped but she denied it.

He said: "The only thing I can be blamed for in this provocation is, I had sex with two girls."

Meanwhile, Shenderovich joked that Putin's security services discriminated in its treatment of him and Yashin.

He wrote: "This means young oppositionists get two free girls and a portion of cocaine, while 50-year-olds like us only get one and no toys."

However, Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, has dismissed Shenderovich's allegations.

He said: "We'd like it if he faced his problems alone." (ANI)

[jbuck919]

I personally think it could help Obama and Michelle just like it did Bill Clinton and Hillary.

(I know I'm going to be sorry I asked.)

[Chalkperson]

The Daily Mail in the UK had this story/rumor/smear in October 2008...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... -wife.html

Interesting... Could be a smear among fellow liberals.

Actually that may be true, one suggestion about this story back in 2008 was that it was HillBill doing the smearing...don't ya just love Conspiracy Theories...

[Madame]

Good Lord!

Sadly, there is a wide audience for these tabloids who believe the salacious stories.

I'm not sure if you're aware, but The National Enquirer broke the Edwards story while the MSM completely ignored it. The National Enquirer was nominated for a Pulitzer for their excellent investigative reporting, but sadly was ignored by the committee .

I watched a show over the weekend that had a panel of evenly split conservatives and liberals and they all agreed that if either the NYT's or The Washington Post broke the Edwards story a Pulitzer would've been awarded.

The latest statistic I've heard is that 45% of married men cheat at one point or another... I've got to think it's higher for men of power and great ambition.

Even a blind pig finds an acorn from time to time.

I think it's gross that the Enquirer is even eligible for the Pulitzer. As a publication, it's filled with trash. And its false stories hurt people. It has been sued successfully by Carol Burnett, Kate Hudson, and Gary Condit's wife.

They'll stop at nothing, nobody's off limits, and their bogus story about Elizabeth Smart's family and the resultant fire-storm between it and the Salt Lake Tribune showed just how low journalistic ethics had dropped.

Even the liberals on the panel from the show I saw gave credit where it was due - The National Enquirer broke and pursued one of the most important stories of the past three years while the MSM sat around and did nothing about it.

Could this be happening again? Who knows? It will be interesting to see how it unfolds.

Are you talking about the John Edwards story? You think it was important? I'd call it highly explosive and certainly tragic for his wife and family. But certainly not Pulitzer Prize material.

[keaggy220]

Good Lord!

Sadly, there is a wide audience for these tabloids who believe the salacious stories.

I'm not sure if you're aware, but The National Enquirer broke the Edwards story while the MSM completely ignored it. The National Enquirer was nominated for a Pulitzer for their excellent investigative reporting, but sadly was ignored by the committee .

I watched a show over the weekend that had a panel of evenly split conservatives and liberals and they all agreed that if either the NYT's or The Washington Post broke the Edwards story a Pulitzer would've been awarded.

The latest statistic I've heard is that 45% of married men cheat at one point or another... I've got to think it's higher for men of power and great ambition.

Even a blind pig finds an acorn from time to time.

I think it's gross that the Enquirer is even eligible for the Pulitzer. As a publication, it's filled with trash. And its false stories hurt people. It has been sued successfully by Carol Burnett, Kate Hudson, and Gary Condit's wife.

They'll stop at nothing, nobody's off limits, and their bogus story about Elizabeth Smart's family and the resultant fire-storm between it and the Salt Lake Tribune showed just how low journalistic ethics had dropped.

Even the liberals on the panel from the show I saw gave credit where it was due - The National Enquirer broke and pursued one of the most important stories of the past three years while the MSM sat around and did nothing about it.

Could this be happening again? Who knows? It will be interesting to see how it unfolds.

Are you talking about the John Edwards story? You think it was important? I'd call it highly explosive and certainly tragic for his wife and family. But certainly not Pulitzer Prize material.

It ended the political career of one of the most promising liberal Presidential candidates of the last decade. Also he certainly was the odds on favorite for an Attorney General position with Obama. Check out the stuff that actually won and see how the Edwards story compares.

[Madame]

It ended the political career of one of the most promising liberal Presidential candidates of the last decade. Also he certainly was the odds on favorite for an Attorney General position with Obama. Check out the stuff that actually won and see how the Edwards story compares.

I did, and the Edwards story comes nowhere near having the substance of the others. National coverage? Yes. But political careers of 'promising' candidates have been taking a hit for some time, it makes one yawn after a while.

The substance of the Watergate reporting is what made Bernstein and Woodward Pulitzer Prize material. A sitting president drummed out of office, by his own party. Criminal behavior. People went to prison. A rag like the NE could never have accomplished that.

[keaggy220]

It ended the political career of one of the most promising liberal Presidential candidates of the last decade. Also he certainly was the odds on favorite for an Attorney General position with Obama. Check out the stuff that actually won and see how the Edwards story compares.

I did, and the Edwards story comes nowhere near having the substance of the others. National coverage? Yes. But political careers of 'promising' candidates have been taking a hit for some time, it makes one yawn after a while.

The substance of the Watergate reporting is what made Bernstein and Woodward Pulitzer Prize material. A sitting president drummed out of office, by his own party. Criminal behavior. People went to prison. A rag like the NE could never have accomplished that.

I'm not asking you to compare the Edwards story with what's won in the past, obviously the Nixon story is historic, but compare the Edwards story to what won for 2010. The winners this year are very non-historic. The Edwards story was overlooked for the plain and simple fact that The National Enquirer is a garbage paper that made the MSM look like garbage papers with this story.

[Proton]

I personally think it could help Obama and Michelle just like it did Bill Clinton and Hillary.

(I know I'm going to be sorry I asked.)

You really didn't expect to get a straight answer, did you?

[Madame]

It ended the political career of one of the most promising liberal Presidential candidates of the last decade. Also he certainly was the odds on favorite for an Attorney General position with Obama. Check out the stuff that actually won and see how the Edwards story compares.

I did, and the Edwards story comes nowhere near having the substance of the others. National coverage? Yes. But political careers of 'promising' candidates have been taking a hit for some time, it makes one yawn after a while.

The substance of the Watergate reporting is what made Bernstein and Woodward Pulitzer Prize material. A sitting president drummed out of office, by his own party. Criminal behavior. People went to prison. A rag like the NE could never have accomplished that.

I'm not asking you to compare the Edwards story with what's won in the past, obviously the Nixon story is historic, but compare the Edwards story to what won for 2010. The winners this year are very non-historic. The Edwards story was overlooked for the plain and simple fact that The National Enquirer is a garbage paper that made the MSM look like garbage papers with this story.

Read my first paragraph.
I did, and the Edwards story comes nowhere near having the substance of the others. National coverage? Yes. But political careers of 'promising' candidates have been taking a hit for some time, it makes one yawn after a while.

By contrast, Nixon was more than a promising candidate, it wasn't about any personal dalliances, and that's the substance that made the Watergate reporting Pulitzer-Prize material.

Sorry I didn't make the connection clearer.

Obviously, Journalistic awards not historic at the time ... that doesn't mean we can't compare winners from different years as to worthiness.

The 2010 award winners wrote about something important, maybe not as politically sensational or claiming national attention as the Edwards scandal. What do you object to specifically about the award given to Barbara Laker and Wendy Ruderman of the Philadelphia Daily News for their resourceful reporting that exposed a rogue police narcotics squad, resulting in an FBI probe and the review of hundreds of criminal cases tainted by the scandal. Here's one of several of their reports:
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/T ... iracy.html

Not sure if you're talking about breaking news or investigative reporting, but while I'm here, do you think this breaking news award less than Pulitzer worthy?

Awarded to The Seattle Times Staff for its comprehensive coverage, in print and online, of the shooting deaths of four police officers in a coffee house and the 40-hour manhunt for the suspect.

If you want to read the tragic and grisly stories, have a look:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... le06m.html


That's where I am coming from as to the caliber of reporting done by NE compared with other media.

[Madame]

Finally --

These are the jurors for investigative reporting.

Melanie Sill*, editor and senior vice president, The Sacramento Bee (chair)
David Murray, managing editor, The Blade, Toledo, Ohio
Gretchen Morgenson*, assistant business and financial editor, The New York Times
Jeffry Couch, editor and vice president, Belleville (IL) News-Democrat
Mark Katches, editorial director, California Watch, and the Center for Investigative Reporting, Berkeley, Calif.
Robert Blau, editor, projects and investigations, Bloomberg News, Washington, D.C.
William C. Hidlay, president and publisher, Courier News/Home News Tribune, East Brunswick, N.J.

*former Pulitzer winner


The two new co-chairs of the Pulitzer Prize Board are near-giants in their field.
http://www.pulitzer.org/new_board_chairs


I'm curious, do you think the Enquirer's nomination was accepted by the Board as mere tokenism? Or do you think the jury was biased in its decision? I'm not sure what the problem is, other than the fact the MSM didn't give the attention to the Edwards story that the NE did.


OK, now I'm nominating you for the CMG Breaking News posting award and myself for its Investigative Posting award

[keaggy220]

It ended the political career of one of the most promising liberal Presidential candidates of the last decade. Also he certainly was the odds on favorite for an Attorney General position with Obama. Check out the stuff that actually won and see how the Edwards story compares.

I did, and the Edwards story comes nowhere near having the substance of the others. National coverage? Yes. But political careers of 'promising' candidates have been taking a hit for some time, it makes one yawn after a while.

The substance of the Watergate reporting is what made Bernstein and Woodward Pulitzer Prize material. A sitting president drummed out of office, by his own party. Criminal behavior. People went to prison. A rag like the NE could never have accomplished that.

I'm not asking you to compare the Edwards story with what's won in the past, obviously the Nixon story is historic, but compare the Edwards story to what won for 2010. The winners this year are very non-historic. The Edwards story was overlooked for the plain and simple fact that The National Enquirer is a garbage paper that made the MSM look like garbage papers with this story.

Read my first paragraph.
I did, and the Edwards story comes nowhere near having the substance of the others. National coverage? Yes. But political careers of 'promising' candidates have been taking a hit for some time, it makes one yawn after a while.

By contrast, Nixon was more than a promising candidate, it wasn't about any personal dalliances, and that's the substance that made the Watergate reporting Pulitzer-Prize material.

Sorry I didn't make the connection clearer.

Obviously, Journalistic awards not historic at the time ... that doesn't mean we can't compare winners from different years as to worthiness.

The 2010 award winners wrote about something important, maybe not as politically sensational or claiming national attention as the Edwards scandal. What do you object to specifically about the award given to Barbara Laker and Wendy Ruderman of the Philadelphia Daily News for their resourceful reporting that exposed a rogue police narcotics squad, resulting in an FBI probe and the review of hundreds of criminal cases tainted by the scandal. Here's one of several of their reports:
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/T ... iracy.html

Not sure if you're talking about breaking news or investigative reporting, but while I'm here, do you think this breaking news award less than Pulitzer worthy?

Awarded to The Seattle Times Staff for its comprehensive coverage, in print and online, of the shooting deaths of four police officers in a coffee house and the 40-hour manhunt for the suspect.

If you want to read the tragic and grisly stories, have a look:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... le06m.html


That's where I am coming from as to the caliber of reporting done by NE compared with other media.

The story you site is absolutely lame compared to the Edwards story. You call infidelity by a nationally known Presidential candidate a yawn, but then you site a story on rogue cops? Have you ever heard of Serpico? Puleeeezee... Talk about a sleeper!

Try this on for size... The Edwards story was not even considered by the committee. Can you imagine...?

[Madame]

The story you site is absolutely lame compared to the Edwards story. You call infidelity by a nationally known Presidential candidate a yawn, but then you site a story on rogue cops? Have you ever heard of Serpico? Puleeeezee... Talk about a sleeper!

Try this on for size... The Edwards story was not even considered by the committee. Can you imagine...?

OK, who are you, and what did you do with Keaggy?

[keaggy220]

The story you site is absolutely lame compared to the Edwards story. You call infidelity by a nationally known Presidential candidate a yawn, but then you site a story on rogue cops? Have you ever heard of Serpico? Puleeeezee... Talk about a sleeper!

Try this on for size... The Edwards story was not even considered by the committee. Can you imagine...?

OK, who are you, and what did you do with Keaggy?

I have a terribly busy day today. So that's my excuse... I came across a little edgy too - probably because of stress...

[Madame]

The story you site is absolutely lame compared to the Edwards story. You call infidelity by a nationally known Presidential candidate a yawn, but then you site a story on rogue cops? Have you ever heard of Serpico? Puleeeezee... Talk about a sleeper!

Try this on for size... The Edwards story was not even considered by the committee. Can you imagine...?

OK, who are you, and what did you do with Keaggy?

I have a terribly busy day today. So that's my excuse... I came across a little edgy too - probably because of stress...

Been there.