What you are witnessing are debunking threads here. This is a systematic defense to protect Obama. The same thing happened with Edwards and the Enquire toyed with the story for a few months before they put out the evidence that made Edwards admit to the affair. The Enquire knows what it is doing to boost sales as it releases enough information over a few issues to increase volume sales. It will tease for a while then get to the nitty gritt in a single blow. They were nominated for a Pulitzer and Clintons lawyer is their lawyer so this is the real deal here. They would not risk going after a President if they didn’t have evidence.
the Enquirer also busted Jesse Jackson and his luv child story-
but they also ran some stuff about Dubya and Condi Rice being soul mates
so - enquiring minds want to know!
Maybe. We’ll see.
However, surely you want to re-think your suggestion that the National Enquirer won’t take a risk. Have you ever read that rag??
Sure they got it right on Edwards, and more power to them. Occasionally they find sleaze that no one else wants to touch, and this may be such a case.
With newfound respectability from the Edwards story, where else but the Enquirer would one try to plant a salacious red herring?
An occasional hit does not a Hall of Famer make.