In the two weeks since the National Enquirer allegedly caught John Edwards red-handed, most of the press has treated the Rielle Hunter story like it’s coated with anthrax. The newspapers haven’t touched it, except in opinion columns about why the newspapers haven’t touched it. 24/7 cable news has spent maybe 10 minutes on it, tops. Network news? Shyeah, right.

But the Internet has been all over it. We’ve been filling the role the news used to. (Whether that’s good or not is up to the reader.) Not to get all triumphalist about it, but we’ve kept this legitimate news story in play and uncovered some very interesting facts. And now Edwards has to decide if he’s even going to set foot in the Democratic National Convention, let alone speak there. All because of a story that hasn’t even been alluded to by Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson, or Katie Couric, but that everybody knows about anyway. Unless you’ve only got two sites bookmarked, Wikipedia and Daily Kos, you’re better informed about this story than you’d be if you only consumed “legitimate” news.

All of which makes Adam Nagourney’s August 1, 2007 story for the International Herald Tribune, “Edwards Campaign Becomes Internet-Savvy,” incredibly ironic:

After running a decidedly traditional race for the White House in 2004 and in the early stages of this contest, Edwards has quietly overhauled his campaign with one central goal: to harness the Internet and the political energy that liberal Democrats are sending coursing through it.

In a slow but striking power shift, advisers who champion the political power of the Web have eclipsed the coterie of advisers who long dominated Edwards’s inner circle, both reflecting and intensifying his transformation into a more populist, aggressive candidate…

The populist message that Edwards offered with a sunny face to living rooms of Iowans in 2004 is this time offered with indignation and anger, replete with us-against-them attacks on President George W. Bush, establishment Washington, the wealthy and the media. And his campaign is methodically pitching it directly at the Web audience.

“The Internet is the principal way we are communicating with voters right now,” Elizabeth Edwards said in an interview.

But now, one short year later, the Internet is the principal way they’re trying to impede communication. That is, assuming they have anything to do with the obvious efforts to scrub any trace of Rielle-ity from the Web. (I’ve been talking about this to anybody who’ll listen, here, here, here, and here.)

And consider this quote from Edwards’ senior campaign advisor Joe Trippi:

“The one thing is, in a strange way, Edwards and Elizabeth — Elizabeth in particular, but Edwards, too — get it that the old way doesn’t work, that you need to use the Internet, blogs, technology, YouTube, to reach out to people.”

But apparently they don’t get that once you reach those people, there are no takebacks. No matter how deep the memory hole is, there’s always going to be somebody with a reeeeeally long fishing line.

(Hat tip, once again, to “Fortunate Son”)

In Other Edwards Non-News: Byron York at National Review talks to Enquirer managing editor David Perel, and Aaron Barnhart at the Kansas City Star looks at this “teachable moment” in history. They also give shout-outs to Deceiver’s coverage, which is primarily why I’m linking to them nice. And the National Journal’s Blogometer read yesterday’s 1,200-word Edwards post, or at least the first sentence.

Update: Well, the National Enquirer got me to do something I’ve never done before: purchase a copy of the National Enquirer. It’s the Aug. 11 edition, which doesn’t have THE PHOTOS EVERYONE’S BEEN WAITING FOR!, but it does have a picture of the mysterious Bob McGovern. If you’ve ever wondered what a professional “intuitive” looks like, here he is on p. 27: