Over in Mediastan, Greg Pollowitz asks:

Will any MSM outlet or Democratic pundit who smeared the National Enquirer offer an apology now that there is not doubt about Edwards’ sliminess?

Oh, come on. Do you remember a chap called Steven Brill, self-appointed “media watchdog” and briefly editor-in-chief of something called Brill’s Content? One of the great comic figures of the Clinton era, he popped up on TV during the early days of the Monica business to denounce the gross irresponsibility of those so-called journalists who reported the utterly unfounded story of the stained dress when there was absolutely no evidence such a dress even existed. As I wrote in the Wall Street Journal back in ‘98:

When it emerged that the dress did in fact exist and was on its way to the FBI crime lab, Mr Brill revised his criticism. He was no longer accusing her of getting the story wrong, but of getting the story right too soon and for the wrong reasons. The responsible journalistic thing to do would be to triple-check your sources a couple of more times and sit on the story until, oh, sometime midway through Al Gore’s second term.

That was the template America’s Dinosaur Dailies applied to the 2008 campaign season. In that sense, John Edwards and Barack Obama are part of the same story — one of media dereliction.

It’s different for Republicans, of course. I gather the Chief Obstetrician of The Atlantic Monthly is still rigorously combing through Sarah Palin’s fallopian tubes. Perhaps, as his parting gift before boarding the express train back to obscurity, John Edwards could announce he fathered Trig, and allow The Atlantic to move on.