>Yeah, for anyone who believes it, (and the late night talk show joke
>you quoted sounds like they don't), sure the National Enquirer staked
>out the hotel room and forgot to bring a camera - no pictures. For
>Doug who posted about how "entertaining" this was: slander is a nasty
>weapon, and thanks to double standards most of the time a more useful
>weapon for the right than the left. Chortling at its successful
>deployment by a bunch of right wing liars strikes me as a really bad
>choice. I'm really shaking my head especially when in between the
>chortling Doug describe the Enquirer as "accurate" . I mean Waddafuck?
>As I said in another post, they won't stop at the truth to sell
>papers, but they don't hesitate to make stuff up, or print guesses as
>solid fact.
not that it really matters, but of all the people they could lie about, WTF would they bother with John Edwards? The people who generally pay attention to the NE are probably the same "low-information voters" who wouldn't know who John Edwards is and probably wouldn't have voted for him anyway.
BTW, I am loving the rash of politically-oriented spam that's coming in lately. "Obama Is Anorexic Over-Exerciser" was the latest. I opened it for gits and shiggles to learn that Britney and Justin are together again. Wee hoo!
There are others, I can't recall exactly, but subject lines indicating Bush has made a turnabout on Iraq, etc. etc. Hilarity.
http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)