No one here seemed too upset when cameramen were tracking down John Edwards illegitimate daughter.
We were, in general, applauding.
Crying over this is an utterly losing proposition.
We now know that Paladino is every bit the dirtbag as a human being as Cuomo is.
Time for the GOP to focus on which of these degenerates has the better policies - because this personal tit-for-tat is not going to help Paladino. Only his far superior plans for NY matter now.
Who are you ...another D'RAT troll?
Not true. I don’t think people here would advocate picking on the little child.
We may have cheered the cameras on the culprits, but not the baby.
We saw the Edwards baby because the Enquirer published them.
No person on our side of the aisle did that to Edwards.
This was done to Pallidino’s child so the reporter could trash Pallidino and embarrass his child to influence an election. It was despicable.
This so called journolist has never posted a negative piece about Pallidino’s opposition.
Where do you get that? That Palladino because he's not "slick" like your boy Cuomo?
LOL I hope you never end up in Palladino's face you may eat that slur... That's the kind of guy Palladino is and he devours simpleton bushwackers like you.
He protected his 10 year old daughter from a liberal rag publication because he has honor guys like you lack.
I think they were looking for the mother, not the child.
Go back and reread the posts.
“No one here seemed too upset when cameramen were tracking down John Edwards illegitimate daughter.”
You do understand the difference between the two circumstances, don't you?
In the case of Mr. Edwards, he had maintained, and continued to assert, that he hadn't had an affair with Ms. Riele, nor fathered her child. Then, after he admitted to the affair, he said it was brief, and that he had proof that he wasn't the father.
The Enquirer wasn't trying to photograph the child, per se, and folks weren't particularly interested in photographs of the child, per se. The Enquirer was interested in photographs of Mr. Edwards’ interacting with the child, as that would have had the effect of reducing the credibility of Mr. Edwards’ assertions regarding his paternity, or lack thereof.
In other words, picture of child and dad were sought to uncover Mr. Edwards’ lies.
In the case of Mr. Palladino, he told his wife of the affair and the child over a year ago. It isn't something that he's hidden as a public figure. I know of no instance where he was asked by the news media whether or not he had an affair, and a child as a result, where he lied and said, "No, I didn't have an affair, no I didn't father that woman's child."
By all accounts, whatever his past sins (and those sins were a decade ago), at this time in his life, he is doing the honorable thing, given the circumstances: he sought forgiveness from and reconciliation with his wife; he is financially supporting his daughter; he acknowledges his daughter and works to make her a part of his life; he has been open to the public about his affair, his daughter, and how he has handled the circumstances.
Thus, there wasn't any need for a “news” photographer to go all peeping tom on the young lady. The outrage against the pervert photographer (and whomever sent him out on his mission) is justified.
The comparison between Mr. Edwards’ circumstances and Mr. Palladino’s is inapt.
sitetest