So, that venerable, unimpeachable journalistic institution The National Enquirer released DAMNING pics of John Edwards with his love child. Or quite possibly some other man holding a love child. Could also be an older woman holding a love child. Maybe it's a hate child -- you have to check the neckline for some kind of "Omen" birthmark. Might not even be a child. Could be a puppet. Or one of those demented "Boglin" toys from the 80s. With the photoshop "smart blur" filter overused.

Here's the link if you want to feel dirty:
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/exclusiv e_john_edwards_love_child_photos/celebri ty/65258

I mention this because the Huffington Post, so excited are they, are linking away from their MAIN PAGE to give the Enquirer their much-needed ad revenue. Of course, Mickey Kaus (of whom Atrios has inquestionable pics fucking a goat, which will be exclusively released any day now) is beyond excited. Any day now, the MSM will jump all over it. Slate even graphically links to Kaus' "5 Reasons to Cover the John Edwards Scandal" which never quite mentions the "1 reason Not To Cover the John Edwards Scandal" which is, of course, the total lack of proof that there is a scandal.

There's a bunch I don't buy about these photos. First of all, the evidence is curtain-based. That is, the Enquirer gives space to show that the curtains in the pic are certainly from the place they say Edwards was when he met the baby. They also offer a clear picture of Edwards in a blue T-Shirt similar to the one the blurry Edwards in the pic is supposedly wearing. I can't tell from the link if the clear shot of Edwards is from the same day as the blurry shot of Edwards. The neck sweat doesn't match, at least.

NOTE: I think the blurry guy looks a lot like John Barrowman of the BBC's "Torchwood" and "Doctor Who." That would definately be a scandal if he had a love child, since he is in a long-time committed relationship with a man. Although his charactor, Captain Jack Harkness is bi.

I'm really unsure what to make of this story, other than wishing to God on high that it's untrue. Not for any love for Edwards, who's sexual activities are quite possibly the least interesting topic I can think of. I just want to see Kaus and the Edwards-Stalkers of the Huffington Post eat some crow. I doubt Kaus would eat crow, rumor has it (totally provable) that he prefers eating his own excrement, and does so daily, in the Slate offices, while Jack Shaefer and John Dickinson stroke his hair romantically. But someone there would likely have to put a stop to his column, maybe via lawsuit (since Libel is Libel even if you are merely repeating libel, although it hasn't been fully tested online yet.). I want Kaus homeless. I want him to have to report on High School graduations in order to eat. I want him to have to hold down a second job at the Barnes and Noble information desk, so I can go there and make him find EVERY BOOK ON JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY I can think of. And then bring them to me. I will peruse them, find useful passages, then give the books back to Kaus to reshelve. I want him to get papercuts from each book, and then to have the salt from his tears aggrivate the wounds.

Is this bad of me? I don't know. But I also don't know the fascination Kaus has had with sex scandals involving the Kerry-Edwards ticket. Remember Kaus was one of the lone pushers of the soon-disproven allegations that John Kerry had a wandering eye for staffers. And for months now Kaus has been pushing every little nugget of rumor on his column, battling with the Huffington Post for who will have the blog that will first link to whatever story the National Enquirer is peddling today. It's like if Woodward and Bernstein were super lazy, relied on supermarket tabloids to do their intellectually dishonest work, and fucked goats.

I just don't understand it. Maybe they like knocking a rich guy who has devoted his life to public service down a few pegs. That'll show him! The contempt the Right has for Edwards I've always thought wasn't based on his wealth -- but rather that he'd use his wealth for liberal causes! McCain can have $550 shoes, he's supposed to. He's a Republican and doesn't care about the poor. But Edwards is a class traitor, and he has nice shoes too! He's enjoying his wealth AND caring about the poor. So he must be ruined. Destroyed. Especially as his wife is dying. ESPECIALLY! It makes it hurt more.

Either way, I have no idea what, if any of this crap, is true. I don't know if the Edwards pics are real, if the baby is his, if the baby is real, if the affair was real, if space robots were involved, if there was a coverup or whatever tripe the Enquirer and it's minions at Slate and Huffington feel like pushing. The thing is NO ONE KNOWS IF ITS TRUE. Was a time, that lack of knowledge would have kept the story out of the pages (web or otherwise) of decent publications. Why that's not the case now escapes me.

But I find the fascination -- fascinating. Anyone else have any theories why the John Edwards sex-theories have become just a great White Whale for these low-rent Ahabs?

Anyone care to make a case why we should care?