A final word: the source of the story is the National Enquirer, why are you arguing that it isn't. Severin is not the issue, Edwards is. You have offered no information on the accusation leveled at Edwards, no source that either confirms or denies. You're attacking the reporters, evading the issue. That is why I'm done engaging with you.
The Source of the Story is the National Enquirer. And you tell us that there is 'silence' from the Edwards campaign, which demonstrates that you did not read the National Enquirer story. Because the Edwards campaign's statement was in the story on the National Enquirer web site.
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/john_edwards_cheating_scandal/celebrity/64271
His spokesman said that allegations Edwards had an affair are "false, absolute nonsense."
And I did state in an earlier post that the credibility of the National Enquirer is limited, at best.
The paper, itself, says they have no first hand information on the subject.
The ENQUIRER made exhaustive but unsuccessful attempts to reach the woman for comment regarding this article but she would not return phone calls or emails or come to the door of the house where she is staying.
It was further stated by you, that you heard the story from the local talk radio station, during the afternoon. It is easy enough to figure out who would be spreading a smear against the Edwards campaign with unsubstantiated rumors. Mr. Severin once made the statement;
But since journalism began, and up until the time at least that I took my master's degree at
Boston University -- and may I add without being obnoxious, up till and including the time that I received a Pulitzer Prize for my columns for excellence in online journalism from the Columbia School of Journalism, the highest possible award for writing on the Web -- right up to and including that in 1998, you still had to practice journalism to be a journalist."
This talk show host claimed to have a degree in Journalism from Boston University. A lie.
This talk show host claimed to have won a Pulitzer Prize. A lie.
This talk show host claimed that he understands what 'journalism' is, and now is passing on a story, unsubstantiated, from the National Enquirer.
You say this is an attack on the reporters. It is important to me that the 'substance' of a message be interpreted and that one not 'shoot the messenger'. You are correct that it is absolutely unfair to attack an arguer, and not the argument. That is why in my first post on this thread ... which I did not make until I watched several other posters kick up the mud on this topic ... asked about sources for the story that were more credible than the one source you say you heard the story from, and the source which started originated the 'story'.
There is no substantial news organization reporting this story, by your own admission. At this point, it is a political hit job. A tactic that has worked well for the Republican Party over the past eight years.
These are the facts, as I understand them. If and when these facts change, let us reconsider. It was, after all, Matt Drudge, (a bastien for unbiased, fact based reporting) that first notified the world of Monica Lewinsky. Til then ... go in peace.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. 
