Conservative bloggers have responded quickly to the Edwards affair admission, as is typically the case when a breaking story hurts the other side. But some conservatives are saving their ire for the media as opposed to Democrats in general.

Byron York at NRO writes:

The question now that Edwards has admitted the Rielle Hunter affair is whether the big media outlets that ignored the story will now report it.  If it wasn't news because Edwards is finished on the national political stage, why would it be news now?  If it wasn't news because it would be painful for Edwards' ailing wife, why would it be news now?  If it wasn't news because it was "tabloid trash," in Edwards' words, why would it be news now?

Also, expect some word soon from Mickey Kaus, who kept pushing for the media to cover this story in a post that has been highly regarded by both the left and right.

Allahpundit makes a similar point as in my earlier post, asking:

If the affair ended so long ago that he couldn't be the father of a child born in February of this year, what's he doing sneaking out to a hotel late at night to visit his old girlfriend?

Other conservative blogger responses on the topic: Red State, John Tabin, Michelle Malkin

Although the news of John Edwards admitting to lying about his affair with Rielle Hunter is still breaking, blogs have the advantage of instantaneous response. Which is why it's interesting to see that at the time of this posting, several of the major progressive blogs are ignoring the story.

Are they hoping the story goes away, or formulating their own thoughtful responses? These sites have not been shy about devoting large swaths of attention to personal Republican scandals, so if we start seeing excuses of this being "below" the discussion threshold, you can safely assume that's a dodge.

MyDD is one of the few chiming in. Diarist American1989 writes:

Elizabeth is speaking at the DNC; John might not. Just amazing! SIDE THOUGHT: What if Kerry-Edwards won in 2004 and were running for re-election. This could have been devastating.

I am a bit surprised that Kevin Drum is taking the Edwards denial of being the father at face value. If you've already been lied to repeatedly by one of your party's leaders about the same subject in question, why give him the benefit of the doubt before a paternity test is taken? And if he's not the father, and the affair ended at least a year ago, why would he be making a secretive late-night visit to see and hold the child?

Talking Points Memo's Greg Sargent recaps the news.

Meanwhile, Daily Kos, Open Left and Firedoglake remain silent.

The National Enquirer's ongoing story about John Edwards' alleged affair and "love child," remains largely off the mainstream media's front pages. But it's interesting to see how the non-traditional media is handling this delicate and still largely unsubstantiated storyline.

The top Google search for "John Edwards" is now a link to the Fox News follow-up to the Enquirer story, with a link tagged "John Edwards Affair The Latest On Edwards's Mistress and Love Child on FOXNews.com!" However, when you follow that link, all you actually get is redirected to Fox News' 2008 candidate profile page for Edwards.

In comparison, a Google blogs search shows that nine of the first 10 search results are focused on the Edwards affair story. But it's the top entry that is most interesting. Over at the conservative blog, Death By 1000 Papercuts, "Mondoreb" reports that regular Daily Kos diarist Lee Stranahan has been banned by the site for blogging on the unfolding Edwards scandal.

Stranahan explains at his own blog what happened:

Over at Blog P.I., William Beutler has a fascinating look at how Wikipedia editors are dealing with the National Enquirer's story alleging John Edwards fathered a child out of wedlock. No mainstream media outlets have handled the story, with the exception of The Fox News Channel, who was merely able to confirm that Edwards was at the hotel where the Enquirer claims he was visiting the woman they say he had an affair with. Beutler notes that more than 26,000 words have been written by Wikipedia's volunteer editing team discussing the merits of the story, but that the actual John Edwards Wikipedia page has been "locked," meaning that no actual updates have been published:

I've now read about half the debate, which is the whole extent of it before new people start showing up and re-arguing old points. Based on my own knowledge of how Wikipedia works and what I've seen in the press, I've come to the conclusion that, even though it sure looks like Edwards' goose is cooked, Wikipedia's editors are currently doing the responsible thing by keeping it out of the article.

With John Edwards set to officially drop-out of the presidential race in a few minutes, progressive bloggers are wondering who his decision helps most: Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? But they are also lauding the former North Carolina senator for running a campaign they say brought attention to populist ideals often-ignored by leading candidates and the media.

Charles Krauthammer be damned, there is evidence that John Edwards is experiencing something of a mini-surge in South Carolina polls. However, it appears that the best Edwards can hope for is to inch ahead of Hillary Clinton for a distant second-place finish to Barack Obama, much like in Iowa.

MyDD’s Todd Beeton says the Edwards surge may be temporary:

while the Edwards surge is impressive, hidden within these three-day rolling averages may be the real story once the votes are counted Saturday night: a potential New Hampshire-like late surge of voters coming home to Clinton.

James Joyner discounts the momentum:

So, let’s say he “shocks the world” by coming in second in a place where people talk like him (he’s from next-door North Carolina, after all) beating out a Yankee senator. Yay for him. Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats allocate their South Carolina delegates proportionally. So he’d get a couple more than if he’d finished third. But so what? He’s not going to suddenly become a contender.

While Open Left’s Chris Bowers says a second-place Edwards finish would be good news for Obama:

Obviously, the ideal situation for Obama would be a double-digit victory coupled with a second-place finish for Edwards. That doesn't seem too likely, but it also isn't impossible.

Bloggers today are dissecting this new Charles Krauthammer editorial, which accuses John Edwards of disowning his entire legislative record (Iraq, Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, etc.) for a distant third-place finish in this year’s Democratic primary contest. In other words, nearly everything he once voted for, he now opposes, and it still isn’t helping him become president.

Or, as Krauthammer puts it:

There's losing. There's losing honorably. And then there's John Edwards.

Ed Morrissey:

He has approached irrelevancy almost as rapidly as Dennis Kucinich but with none of the entertainment value.

While Michael Cohen at Democracy Arsenal jokes:

I don't have a real problem with anything Krauthammer has written here, which I have to admit gives me a sort of queasy feeling

CNN reports that John Edwards and Hillary Clinton met backstage after last night's debate for a private discussion, but none of the specific details of that conversation were divulged. Is Edwards angling for another VP spot, making amends for his earlier confrontations with Hillary, or were the two just chatting?

Shakespear's Sister writes:

I've heard/read a bit of chatter recently about the whole Democratic ticket coming from the top three, but I find that highly unlikely, unless Edwards gets the nomination. If Hils gets it, I'd put money on her choosing Bayh as a running mate. If Obama gets it, I'm less sure about whom he'd choose, but I can say with some confidence it wouldn't be either of the two people with whom he shared a stage last night.

James Joyner wonders why Edwards is still in the race and Matt Stoller notes how “vicious” the campaign debate has become.

Time’s Jay Newton-Small has joined her publication's blogger ranks over at Swampland and files this dispatch from New Hampshire reporting that Elizabeth Edwards is now comparing her husband to the famous racing horse Seabiscuit.

Newton-Small brings the snark, taking down the awkward metaphor by asking, “And doesn't the Seabiscuit mantle require, um, winning something first?”

Of course, it’s worth pointing out to both her and team Edwards that another candidate was comparing himself to Seabiscuit not too long ago: Dennis Kucinich.

UPDATE: Mike Huckabee also thinks he's Seabiscuit

John Edwards is giving his post-caucus speech right now. He is spinning a third-place tie well, talking about “showing backbone,” against Clinton and Obama, whom he says thought they could buy the election.

Liberal bloggers are certainly pulling for an Edwards second-place showing, both to keep his own campaign above water, and, perhaps, more importantly, to drown out Hillary.

Matt Yglesias:

It looks like he's likely to wind up in second. Certainly, I hope he hands on to it, both for the blow it'll do to Hillary Clinton's chances and also because he deserves to do well. It's very hard to see how his candidacy can stay viable without an Iowa win, but he's had a huge -- and entirely positive -- impact on the race.

Daily Kos held its latest straw poll yesterday, where John Edwards and Barack Obama continued to show traction, finishing first and second, respectively. With 14,804 respondents, Edwards took 39 percent of the vote, improving his standing amongst progressive bloggers in the poll for the third consecutive time. Obama placed second with 30 percent. His numbers have fluctuated in each poll, but the 30 percent mark is his highest placement yet.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton remains static, tying for fourth place with Dennis Kucinich, as both received eight percent in the poll.

Markos’ take:

I voted "Obama" this time, not necessarily because I support him, but because the alternatives are no good. Hillary? Yeah right. Edwards? If he hadn't taken public financing, I'd probably go for him (and who doesn't have a crush on Elizabeth?). But I refuse to vote for a guy who will be broke for about seven months in 2008 while the other side beats the crap out of him. I know his partisans have convinced themselves that this doesn't just not matter, but that it's a good thing! Good for them, I guess. That doesn't mean I think Obama walks on water. Far from it. The guy is going around idiotically attacking Paul Krugman, dancing with homophobic preachers, and while his rhetoric is beautiful upon first listening, an hour later you're left wondering if he said anything of substance at all (and the answer is usually "no").

Over at Open Left, Chris Bowers sees more good news for John Edwards emerging from some recent New Hampshire polling data:

"My suspicions of a faster Edwards increase were correct.” Bowers cites aggregated polling data from Real Clear Politics which shows that Edwards is not only a contender in Iowa: “Over the last three weeks, Obama has risen 0.8% in New Hampshire, while John Edwards has risen 3.1%. His rise is to such an extent that, in the event of an Edwards, Obama, Clinton 1-2-3 finish in Iowa, I would slightly favor John Edwards to win both New Hampshire and the overall nomination."

There’s little doubt that whichever candidate wins Iowa will gain a significant overall boost in their national numbers and momentum. However, the major obstacle facing both Edwards and Mike Huckabee is whether an Iowa victory would be enough to catapult them into front-runner status in neighboring New Hampshire, whose voters have very different priorities and attitudes than Iowa voters. But if Edwards is already a strong third in New Hampshire, you have to believe he’s as much a contender as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Still, his acceptance of federal matching funds places him at a distinct disadvantage the other Democratic candidates wouldn’t face if they won the nomination. Would their party really want to be financially limited during an election cycle when their overall fundraising numbers are far outpacing Republican candidates?

While Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continue to earn most of the news headlines in their increasingly personal battle for Iowa, there’s an emerging theme this morning about the renewed possibility for John Edwards to wind up as the literal or symbolic victor of that battle.

First, many liberal bloggers are echoing the sentiment of the Ohio for John Edwards blog, which says of yesterday’s NPR debate:

“[A]t today's NPR debate, Hillary and Barack spend so much time sniping at one another, Edwards seemed to emerge as the voice of reason and dignity.”

And as MyDD’s Todd Beeton notes, when John Edwards finished a strong second in Iowa back in 2004, many attributed his showing to fallout from Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt’s contentious debates leading up to the caucuses:

“In 2004, the model for how the final Iowa result came about was that the two front-runners went at it, thus creating a space for a third (and fourth) guy to come up through the middle. So, I wonder, now that Clinton and Obama are going at it, why don't people expect this will play out once again to Edwards's benefit?”

That scenario certainly is plausible. After all, Edwards has hovered within the polling margin of error for most of the campaign. And while he certainly dropped under the national media radar these past few months, that may have actually played to his benefit. He’s been able to spend that "wilderness" time almost entirely focused on winning over actual Iowa voters, rather than balancing his effort there with a more nationally focused campaign.