Edwards’ is sadism, for this explanation

1. Psychiatry. sexual gratification gained through causing pain or degradation to others. Compare masochism.
Entelechy on August 11, 2008 at 3:32 PM

S&M: Birds of a fetish flock together.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/08/10/2008-08-10_john_edwards_is_a_liar_and_cheat_who_has-2.html

The alternate theory, that Hunter and McGovern tipped the paper off, doesn’t make sense unless you can explain why they’d want the Enquirer to be there for the second meeting but not for the first. Assuming, of course, that the paper wasn’t there for the first meeting in June, which we really don’t know yet.

Maybe a negotiation at the first meeting did not go well, requiring more external pressure be applied to the squeeze.

Puh-leez. This story is going to END John Edwards, as the affair, love child, and then, more damagingly, the cover-up come into focus.

His forst appearance was his chance, and he blew it.

TheBigOldDog on August 11, 2008 at 3:55 PM

I think she EXPECTED him to report on their meeting and was disappointed when he didn’t. Call it a hunch.

Am I the only one who thought it was funny how Dalmer announced that, from the very first time he saw Hunter, he knew “she was news”? To paraphrase Seifeld (the car rental episode), anyone can RECOGNIZE the news, Jon, the important part is REPORTING the news.

The only people in America buying this BS are the MSM and Elizabeth Edwards.

I like this theory better, simply because of the media used. I mean who would call the Enquirer? They’re not exactly considered journalists, so anything sent to them wouldn’t really be believed.

Esthier on August 11, 2008 at 3:36 PM

Read the Newweek story. Jonathan Dalmer knew. I bet she was trying to get him to print the story and he declined. I bet she’s told several outlets and none of the MSM would brake it so she was forced to go to the Enquirer.

The sister for the obvious reason that her sister is being played for a fool and Hunter because she wants to hook him and potentially shake him free sooner rather than later. The woman wanted to do a TV show about having affairs with men to get them out of bad marriages….

Shouldn’t we expect Hunter to be taken off the Baron payroll if there is nothing more to keep us from finding out about?

If he took her off the payroll, she would sue Edwards for child support and we would find out, not that we didn’t know already, that he lied about paternity and that he did not end the affair when he said he did.

Assuming, of course, that the paper wasn’t there for the first meeting in June, which we really don’t know yet.

I’ll have to find it, but I’m certain the NE editor said they were ‘too late’ when they tried to get there previously.

So here’s a theory: Someone who works at the hotel, probably at the front desk, spots Edwards there in June and phones the Enquirer with a hot tip. “Terrific!” say the editors. “Let us know if/when he, Hunter, or McGovern make any reservations in the future.” A few days before the July meeting, McGovern calls to make a reservation, the news is passed on from the front desk to the Enquirer, and the Enquirer cuts a check to their mole in due course as thanks for a job well done.

That’s how it usually happens. Remember, this is Beverly Hills. Even UCLA medical center personnel got busted for giving information to the tabloids.