Another Friday on the John Edwards story, another emergency room visit (”dehydration”) for your old pal Simon. But while I’m sprawled out here in Admissions, I can tell you about some of the interesting stuff Deceiver’s super-awesome commenters have been digging up. Primarily:

Rielle isn’t the first woman who’s embarrassed the Edwards campaign. Trusty ol’ Fortunate Son points out that two Edwards campaign bloggers, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, had to resign in early ‘07 because of some silly stuff they’d said on their personal blogs. (That darn right-wing smear machine!) So, Edwards’ vetting process for his bloggers was almost as good as the one for his videographer. And they didn’t even get a consolation prize like Rielle did…

I especially appreciated this Edwards quote about the blogger flap from his 4/6/07 interview at Salon.com:

“I think bloggers in general are a very healthy thing. I think it’s good for democracy…”

Couldn’t agree more. He continues:

“Bloggers by nature, as you know, are right at the edge. That’s how they operate. It’s how they get their message across and how they get heard.”

Glad you understand, John. No hard feelings! And what’s the Web’s most important function?

“Getting information out there that’s not getting out there any other way.”

Oh, you betcha.

Keep in mind that this interview was less than a week after his last payment to Rielle for those cruddy campaign videos almost nobody got to see. Which was at least three months after Rielle claims she was fired. Now that Edwards’ stated timeline of the affair has fallen to pieces, it seems likely that he was still seeing Rielle at the time he gave that interview, or soon would be again. And there he was, praising the information-disseminating power of the Web. I almost admire his chutzpah.

• It’s also worth noting that on April 9, three days after that interview, Elizabeth made an uncharacteristic personal attack against a “rabid, rabid Republican” neighbor of theirs in Raleigh. Was this an attempt to deflect possible media scrutiny of the affair? Purely speculation, of course. (FS again.)
• FS also points out that Fred Baron and Lee Rohn are both board members of something called Public Justice. Of course, these days people are more curious about what those two attorneys have been doing in private…
• FS is also questioning the timeline put forth by Newsweek’s Jonathan Darman, questioning the practices of the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, and questioning the sudden, unexplained exit of Edwards media consultant Marius Penczner in Sept. ‘07.
• Fellow Deceiver supercommenter Kris gets in on the action, pointing out the close ties between the Daily Kos and the Edwards campaign. (No wonder Lee Stranahan was kast out.) Kris also delves deeper into Edwards’ alleged financial subterfuge here, and has some further questions about those campaign videos here.

That should be enough to hold you guys for a little while, right? This story keeps developing, seemingly by the hour, so feel free to post any relevant links in the comments. Or, you could go outside and get some fresh air. Maybe fly down to St. Croix…

• “When it comes to rounding up John Edwards news and links, I can’t hope to compete with Deceiver.” — Mickey Kaus, Rielle-Hunter #1 #2
• Kaus also links to a story I missed from the Aug. 14 Santa Barbara Independent. (The last few weeks are kind of a blur, but I think I glanced at that one and dismissed it because of the “Angry Poodle” drawing. D’oh!) It says that Rielle is, “underneath that extravagantly New Age exterior, tough as nails and hard as rock.” And somewhat smarter than both!
• Paul Mulshine looks at the origin of the “Riley” mispronunciation. So much for my theory that it referred to the sort of life she was leading before this news broke.
• John Kerry feels “very, very badly” for the Edwards family. Why the long face, Senator?
• The National Enquirer is promising more baby pictures tomorrow. If a six-month-old could write a meticulously worded non-denial denial, we’d be seeing it right about now. “While admittedly my very existence implies that my mother was impregnated at some point in the summer of 2007, I have no specific knowledge that John Edwards is my father. Also, if somebody could please change my diaper, that would be great.”
• Did you know that John Edwards, private citizen who nobody cares about anymore, has delegates going to the DNC next week? Sure, they’ll be voting for Obama, but they’re still Edwards delegates. Sounds like they feel a bit silly. (Update: But he won’t be there himself. Which I’m sure was the plan all along, right?)
• Gawker has a clip of Rielle’s shining moment as an actress, appearing opposite a young Denzel in the 1991 action-thriller Ricochet. She played a pushy, excitable reporter, which is just perfect. (Note to Netflix: Buy more Ricochet DVDs!)
• As blogger Matt Schiavenza points out, the Wikipedia entry on this scandal has over 100 citations. It’s weird that a few weeks ago it wasn’t even considered worthy of inclusion, huh?
• Via The Beltway Boys on Fox News (boo!), I like Jon Stewart’s response (yay!) to Edwards’ clarification that “none of my family are responsible for this but me.”
• Per John in North Carolina, a couple of NC newspapers are bickering over which one broke the story of the baby’s fatherless birth certificate. Which is even funnier when you consider that the little tyke was born in California.
• Is this whole thing just a private matter between a husband, a wife, and a political action committee?
• As I listen to Rielle’s 911 call about the paparazzi following her, I’m struck by her hesitation — “Uh, uh, uh, uh…” — when the 911 operator asks why they’re trying to take pictures of Rielle and the baby. It’s almost like she’s thinking, “Okay, I need help here, but they record these calls, so I need to choose my words very carefully…” I also like how almost every statement Rielle makes sounds like a question? Plus, this audio is just further confirmation that she pronounces it “Ree-elle.”
• According to Inside Edition, Rielle made that call from an LA freeway “just one week before the story of her affair broke.” (I think they mean one week before the research thieves at ABC News “broke” the story on 8/8, not one week before the Enquirer actually broke the story on 7/22.) Inside Edition also says: “Shortly after the call Hunter was flown out of the country on a private jet to [a] secret location, where she currently remains. INSIDE EDITION has learned the photographer tailing her was later cited for making an illegal U-turn.” So if nothing else, at least this whole thing is taking some of the heat off George Clooney.
• 8/20 update: According to the Enquirer, Rielle and the baby were flown to St. Croix by private jet on 8/7. They stayed there for about 10 days in a home owned by Lee Rohn, yet another trial lawyer with ties to Edwards. Then the Enquirer tracked them down and they were flown back to Santa Barbara.The Enquirer is also directly accusing Edwards of orchestrating this expensive game of tag (Rielle’s carbon footprint is getting ridiculous) and the various payoffs. And they’ve got a pic of Rielle and the baby on the cover. I can’t tell at a glance if it’s the same kid from the previous photo, but so far the Enquirer has been right about this story…

  

• Another 8/20 update: Allahpundit at Hot Air says it best. “There sure are a lot of pals in [Edwards'] orbit willing to do extremely extravagant favors for a woman he had only a brief dalliance with two years ago, aren’t there? You’d think people like Rohn and Fred Baron would cut her off at this point lest their largesse appear any more suspiciously coordinated and incriminating for Edwards. But no, the favors keep flowing unbidden, even now that the story’s broken wide open and each new favor they do only draws closer media scrutiny upon themselves.”

Hey, it’s not up to me anymore. This stuff is out there, so either grin and bear it or hit that scrollbar:

• First things first: According to no less an authority than Pigeon O’Brien, Rielle is pronounced “Ree-elle.” Not “Riley” or “Real” or “Cosmic Babymaker McGee” or anything else. So that’s one unanswered question down, a zillion to go…
• When you’re campaigning for president and you think your hometown newspaper is about to run with a story about your infidelity — and, inevitably, the intricate and expensive coverup of that infidelity — you know what’s a good weapon to have in your arsenal? Your wife’s cancer.
• McSweeney’s presents: Edwards! The Musical.
• A commenter on Toby Harnden’s blog at the Daily Telegraph says:
  

  Nobody in the general public actually cares about John Edwards or his unsavory behavior. Edwards became ancient history the first five minutes after this thing broke.

  But according to Deceiver supercommenter Fortunate Son, that opinion is ill-informed:
  
  The NYT might be a bunch of miserable research-bandits, but they’ve got quite a few readers. At least for now…

• Despite the National Enquirer’s ownership of this story and the grudging respect they’re getting from the “real” press, their parent company, American Media Inc., is in deep financial doo-doo.
• David Usborne at The Independent asks: “Just days before the start of the Democratic convention in Denver, which will culminate in the crowning of Barack Obama, are we, in fact, seeing the early outlines of a first-rate political cover-up?” Could be!
• Another interesting tidbit from that Independent story: The night before Edwards “confessed,” his good friend and benefactor Fred Baron held a fundraiser for… I probably shouldn’t say. (Some of my best friends are from Illinois, honest!)
• Retired North Carolina journalist Bob Wilson has some advice for his younger colleagues: “An Edwards Story Lesson: Use the Elephant.”
• Howard Kurtz reflects on the unerring journalistic instincts that have made him the name he is today:
  

  I had a strong feeling last weekend when John Edwards finally acknowledged having an extramarital affair that we hadn’t heard the end of this thing.

  Really? It’s always helpful when they put stuff like that in the first sentence, so I don’t have to waste time reading the rest.

• DBKP does a very close reading of the press releases put out by various members of the Edwards camp. The more DBKP connects the dots on this story, the clearer the picture becomes: a noose.
• HotAir.com has questions about the timeline. At this point we can all agree that the Edwards version is not to be considered canon, yes?
• If you’ve been thinking Rielle Hunter’s life would make a great episode of Law & Order, Dick Wolf is wayyyy ahead of you.
• Stranahan: “As we head into the the Democratic convention, the Edwards scandal isn’t over. It’s really just beginning.” And the commenters howl for blood…
• “…because they’re trying to prove, um… uh, uh, uh, uh, someone is the father of my baby who’s not…”
• As always, you can find Deceiver’s complete coverage of the whole mess here. Note that we were looking into the NYT’s most-searched story two weeks before they even deigned to write about it.