RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

32 Responses to “John Edwards admits to having affair (MORE: EDWARDS’ STATEMENT ADDED)”

Comments

1. Mwalimu Daudi says:

   August 8, 2008 at 4:33 pm

   Looks like the Enquirer got at least part of it right after all…..

   That is the scary part of this whole affair (pun semi-intended) – the Enquirer did a better job covering the news than the MSM did. Better than the “layers of fact-checkers”. Better than the professional, award-winning journalists did. The Enquirer was better and more accurate. The Enquirer. The Enquirer, for Heaven’s sake! That should terrify any normal person.

   Ok – if the child isn’t his and the affair is supposedly over, why would he still visit the hotel? Enquiring minds want to know.

   Good point. Why should we believe the MSM after all of this? It sounds like ABC is putting out this belated semi-admission in order to clear a path for Edwards’ defenders to whip out the his-wife-forgave-him-so-what-is-the-big-deal alibi. Amazing how that did not work for Larry Craig and David Vitter.
2. Dana says:

   August 8, 2008 at 4:56 pm

   I’d point out here that the Honorable Mrs Edwards was your senator for six years!

   There is no reason for any married man to visit a woman with whom he had an affair, but broke off that affair over a year ago, sneaking away from his sick wife to do so, unless he had some . . . interests . . . remaining.

   It was rumored that Mr Edwards wanted to become the next Attorney General, but it seems that Secretary of Health and Human Services might be more appropriate.
3. NC Cop says:

   August 8, 2008 at 5:22 pm

   Let’s not forget that Johnny boy was to triumph honesty and integrity in the presidential campaign:

   Edwards shifts focus to integrity

   By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer Tue Oct 30

   EXETER, N.H. – Democrat John Edwards is trying to turn the Democratic presidential race into a referendum on honesty and integrity, areas where polling has shown that voters are divided about Hillary Rodham Clinton.

   The argument marks a shift in a race where Edwards and Clinton’s other Democratic opponents have criticized her stance on policy but usually have avoided taking on her character directly. In an interview Monday with The Associated Press, Edwards said Clinton is part of a corrupt Washington system.

   “Good people are caught up in this system, and I’ve given some examples of the places that I think she’s caught up in it” Edwards said. “And I also, secondly, think that she continues to defend it. And I don’t think you can bring up the change this country needs if you defend a corrupt system that doesn’t work.

   “The closer we get to the election and the more people move past celebrity and to the issues such as honesty, integrity and who can actually bring about change, I think they are going to pay very close attention to those questions” Edwards said while riding in a minivan between campaign stops.

   Ah yes. John Edwards….the gift that keeps on giving.
4. William Teach says:

   August 8, 2008 at 6:27 pm

   Are you sure he is a Democrat? I mean, the media isn’t telling us that.

   Now we know why Edwards was getting $400 haircuts.
5. ChenZhen says:

   August 8, 2008 at 7:20 pm

   ST-

   I’d say the MSM has a lot to answer for here, too, considering Edwards’ name was being thrown around as a possible running mate for Obama. The mainstream mediots dropped the ball on this one, an we all know why (hint: The “D” in “D-NC”).

   I don’t get what you mean by “dropped the ball”. Should they have been camped out and tailing Edwards everywhere 24/7 with spy cams? That’s what rags like the Enquirer are for.
6. William Teach says:

   August 8, 2008 at 7:26 pm

   Chen, the media should have at least attempted to cover the story, rather then ignoring it, until they were FORCED to take notice. That is what professional reporters are supposed to do.
7. ChenZhen says:

   August 8, 2008 at 7:41 pm

   William-

   But did the media have anything to cover? Or was the story “The National Enquirer says…”? It was my understanding that they did ask Edwards about it, and he denied. So where did they drop the ball?
8. Mwalimu Daudi says:

   August 8, 2008 at 7:43 pm

   Mickey Klaus over at Slate had a good summary of how this has progressed (you have to scroll a bit to find the following list):

   1) Too horrible and shocking; it can’t possibly be true;

   2) It’s not true;

   3) You can’t prove it’s true;

   4) Why are you trying to prove it’s true?

   5) It’s disgusting that you’ve proved it’s true;

   6) What’s the big deal anyway? …
9. John personal trainer Austin TX says:

   August 8, 2008 at 8:09 pm

   He didn’t love her; isn’t tht special .

   I suppose their private affairs are none of our business. Newt, Foley, L. Craig, Livingston, Vitter, Spitzer, McGrevey, Packwood, Clinton – there is a long list of public people with personal failings. I am not put off by the act or the lying (What do they have to lose at that point?), and as a general rule, I don’t think adultery should be a disqualifier for office. What is repellent to me is the hypocrisy, the cravenness that they hold on to power after being caught, and the humiliation their spouses have to endure when used as props when they make public admissions. They are self-absorbed malignant narcissists. Bob Packwood ran for reelection. Bob Livingston did it right; he got caught and resigned in hours. I did notice McCain gave a firm no comment to an Edwards affair.
10. NC Cop says:

    August 8, 2008 at 8:18 pm

    It was my understanding that they did ask Edwards about it, and he denied. So where did they drop the ball?

    It means they didn’t follow up on it. They didn’t pursue it like reporters should. Give me a break, ChenZen, if this “rumor” was about Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney do you honestly think reporters wouldn’t have been digging into this from day one. Please stop with the “Gosh, what should they have done?” routine.
11. ChenZhen says:

    August 8, 2008 at 8:46 pm

    NC Cop-

    Then I guess we’ve gotten to the point where everything in the National Enquirer is to be taken seriously and rigorously explored.
12. NC Cop says:

    August 8, 2008 at 8:50 pm

    Then I guess we’ve gotten to the point where everything in the National Enquirer is to be taken seriously and rigorously explored.

    It would seem so in this case, wouldn’t it?

    Once again, ChenZen, the topic is not whether or not the Enquirer is a serious news source, but the fact that such a tabloid newspaper did a better job than our MSM says a lot about them, not the Enquirer. Once again, I ask, if the same rumors were said about Romney or Thompson do you think our MSM would do a little more than just ask them?
13. ChenZhen says:

    August 8, 2008 at 9:10 pm

    NC Cop-

    Well, since the topic of a secret affair and a “love child” would seem to be the exclusive domain of the tabloids, necessitating zoom cameras, stakeouts and digging through trash cans, I guess you’re expecting CNN and Fox to follow The Enquirer’s lead on that sort of thing? We should have tuned in to see Christian Amanpour parked outside the Beverly Hills Hilton? C’mon.

    And yes, I think they would have done the same thing with Romney and Thompson.
14. Mwalimu Daudi says:

    August 8, 2008 at 9:31 pm

    And yes, I think they would have done the same thing with Romney and Thompson.

    Oh? David Vitter and Larry Craig will be glad to hear that. And Bob Livingston, too. The MSM trampled each other in the rush to publish allegations about them. How about the false allegations of an affair between John McCain and a lobbyist? No restraint was evident there! Your claim makes is not backed up by history.

    Does it not bother you in the least that the Enquirer showed better journalistic judgment than the rest of the MSM? Talk about hitting rock bottom – the Enquirer outperforms all those “layers of fact-checkers” the MSM boasts about. I am quite sure the MSM was trying hard to find evidence for this story the same way a mouse tries hard to find a cat.

    Personally I would love to see the MSM “parked outside the Beverly Hills Hilton”. It would be a vast improvement over their recent actions of polishing the Edwards’ legend.

    I leave you with these stages of MSM denial from Mickey Klaus (which was eaten in a prior post):

    1) Too horrible and shocking; it can’t possibly be true;

    2) It’s not true;

    3) You can’t prove it’s true;

    4) Why are you trying to prove it’s true?

    5) It’s disgusting that you’ve proved it’s true;

    6) What’s the big deal anyway?
15. William Teach says:

    August 8, 2008 at 9:40 pm

    Chen, imagine that Edwards was a Republican. What would the media have done? Ignored it? Taken his word? Or investigated the hell out of it, made insinuations (consider the NY Times’ story on McCain and Vicki Iseman), and done everything they could to follow the story?
16. Mwalimu Daudi says:

    August 8, 2008 at 9:45 pm

    Ask and ye shall receive – my eaten comment (#8) has become uneaten. Praise the Internet Gods! Or ST!
17. Sister Toldjah says:

    August 8, 2008 at 9:47 pm

    LOL – sorry about that, MD. Dunno why that happens, but I’m always happy to come to the rescue
18. ChenZhen says:

    August 8, 2008 at 9:49 pm

    Vitter had connections to prostitution, and Craig was allegedly soliciting gay sex in the mens room, both of which had criminal implications.

    And I thought Livingston was outed by Larry Flynt.

    I will concede, however, that the McCain/lobbyist thing was pretty weak on the NYT’s part, even if they could excuse themselves into covering the story from a “corruption” angle.

    But I’m still not sure what, exactly, the MSM should have done further with the Edwards thing.
19. Mwalimu Daudi says:

    August 8, 2008 at 9:59 pm

    Vitter had connections to prostitution, and Craig was allegedly soliciting gay sex in the mens room, both of which had criminal implications.

    Bandwith limitations prevent me from adequately bringing up the pants-down Presidency of William Jefferson Clinton. The MSM is still convinced that it was just GOP obsession with sex.

    And I thought Livingston was outed by Larry Flynt.

    And yet it did not stop the MSM from running wild with the story. Why the double standard now?

    The Enquirer is the gold-standard when it comes to sensationalistic, worthless, tabloid journalism – and yet they beat the snot out of the MSM on this story. Why?
20. ChenZhen says:

    August 8, 2008 at 10:18 pm

    The Enquirer is the gold-standard when it comes to sensationalistic, worthless, tabloid journalism – and yet they beat the snot out of the MSM on this story. Why?

    Well, assuming that the “love child” isn’t his, I’d say…not really.
21. Great White Rat says:

    August 9, 2008 at 12:38 am

    The Enquirer is the gold-standard when it comes to sensationalistic, worthless, tabloid journalism

    Oh, I’m not sure about that. Considering the way the NYT played up a false affair story about McCain, the way Newsweek screeched (falsely) about flushed Korans, the way Dan Rather tried to rig an election by intentionally airing forged documents, and too many more to describe at length, I think the Enquirer has serious competition for that gold standard.

    At least the Enquirer is an equal-opportunity tabloid trasher. That implies some level of integrity, however weak, that the MSM lacks. As NC Cop said, if this were a Republican, it would have been above the fold on the NYT and led the evening news on NBC/CNN/etc for a week now.
22. Dana says:

    August 9, 2008 at 6:57 am

    ChenZhen: It seems as though you are taking a rather large stick to a very dead equine here. If this was the first example of The National Enquirer making the sensationalistic and accurate exposure of a politician’s peccadillos, you’d have a better point, but t’was the Enquirer that outed the Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky stories as well, and might have been the one that broke the Gary Hart/Donna Rice monkey business — pun intended.

    That the Enquirer was on the right track was obvious from the moment that they were able to place Mr Edwards and Miss Hunter — though with a suite rented in the name of one of Miss Hunter’s friends — in the same hotel at an uncomfortable hour. The Enquirer didn’t have the photos at first, but I think that they might have sandbagged everyone on that account, and simply withheld publication for a couple of weeks, to increase sales for more than one issue.
23. Severian says:

    August 9, 2008 at 9:56 am

    Seems to me the “usual suspects,” i.e. the liberal peanut gallery, weren’t so disparaging of The National Enquirer when they broke the story about Rush Limbaugh’s drug addiction. Now that they’re pulling the curtain back on a big lib, suddenly they’re just another tabloid, nothing to see here, keep moving on.
24. William Teach says:

    August 9, 2008 at 10:46 am

    But I’m still not sure what, exactly, the MSM should have done further with the Edwards thing.

    Their jobs. Investigate. Ask. Not ignore it and tell their bloggers to not even write about (like the LA Times)
25. NC Cop says:

    August 9, 2008 at 5:57 pm

    And yes, I think they would have done the same thing with Romney and Thompson.

    Well I guess as long as you believe it, that’s all that matters.

    By the way, I have some lovely Ocean front property for sale. Only $1 million. Let me know.
26. MissJean says:

    August 9, 2008 at 8:47 pm

    “and might have been the one that broke the Gary Hart/Donna Rice monkey business — pun intended.”

    Nope. That story was broken by the executive editor of the Miami Herald, Tom Fiedler, and the investigative reporter Jim McGee. The National Enquirer picked it up later, along with several other media outlets.

    The reason the Edwards story is newsworthy is that he paid $100K to his lover for four months of work that produced only four measly campaign videos on the Internet. Cronyism is newsworthy, and this sort of story adds another dimension: campaign funds misused on a politician’s sex pal. I remember the outrage from young working women when they found out how much Monica Lewinsky got paid working as a mail-handler in the Office of Legislative Affairs after starting her affair with Clinton and later her paid position at the Pentagon, which was a rather difficult place to get a job at the time. (Lewinsky and Hunter certainly made a lot of money from sex, didn’t they?)
27. forest hunter says:

    August 10, 2008 at 12:30 pm

    …working as a mail-handler in the Office of Legislative Affairs after starting her affair with Clinton…

    So THAT’S how they all avoided prosecution……..a combination of a spelling error and interpretive dance!
28. fouse, gary c says:

    August 10, 2008 at 9:14 pm

    After watching the John Edwards interview by Bob Woodruff on ABC’s Nightline, I came away with a few reactions.

    First of all, Edwards looked tired and wan-not surprising considering what he has been going through the past couple of weeks.

    More importantly, beyond admitting that he committed a “serious error in judgement” and engaged in an affair with Rielle Hunter in 2006, I firmly believe that he is still lying about several key points, most notably being the father of Hunter’s baby girl and not having any knowledge of monies paid to Hunter. I also believe that the coming weeks will show that.

    First of all, Edwards stated his willingness to take a paternity test, something one would think he would have taken after the child was born in February. Not withstanding that point, it is easy for him to express willingness to take such a test. Guess who holds the keys to that castle? Rielle Hunter, that’s who, and she is the woman who is allegedly receiving $15,000 a month from someone close to Edwards. Unless of course, Andrew Young wants to come forward and claim his parental rights to authorize a test (remember, no father’s name appears on the birth certificate).

    Interestingly, there was one part of the interview in which Edwards was clearly unable to offer a coherent response. That was regarding the picture of him in the hotel room holding the baby. For some reason, he did not want to concede that was him in the picture,even speculating that it might be a forgery. He told Woodruff that he was wearing a different blue shirt that night. His explanation was absolutely unconvincing.

    One especially astounding statement came when Edwards told Woodruff that he “used the fact that the (National Enquirer) story contained many falsities to deny it”, which he described as “being 99% honest”!!

    Well, in that case, it’s time to “Move On”- to Denver!

    Not so fast, John Edwards. There is more.

    In trying to explain why he was at the Beverly Hilton Hotel on the evening of July 21-until 2:40 am- visiting a woman he was no longer involved with and a baby that was not his, Edwards stated that he wanted to convince Hunter not to reveal the affair.

    My question is, what was different two weeks ago from 2 months ago or last year, when he and Hunter were denying the story? Wasn’t she getting $15,000 a month and living in a swanky home in Santa Barbara?

    And that leads to what may be Edwards’ biggest problem down the pike. Where is all that money coming from? Edwards told Woodruff that he had no idea. Meanwhile, with the story breaking, his former campaign finance (FINANCE) director, Fred Baron, is now saying that he threw a few bucks in Hunter’s direction-without Edwards’ knowledge. More specifically, Baron has told the Dallas Morning News that he paid (with his own funds) to have Ms Hunter relocated from Chapel Hill, NC to Santa Barbara because she was being hounded by reporters. At this point, beyond a personal indiscretion, is there a possibility that campaign funds and contributions were being diverted to Edwards’ mistress? I am not saying this is the case, but I think it merits an inquiry by whichever regulatory/law enforcement agency has jurisdiction, to say nothing of all those ace investigative reporters working for the mainstream news media-if they are interested. On the other hand, I suppose they could just leave it to that trashy tabloid National Enquirer to continue doing their job for them.

    The bottom line is this: Edwards, in his public statement, says that now that he has come clean, he will have no further statement on the matter. He is mistaken. In my opinion, his interview and his statement are still full of lies. Mr Edwards still has a lot of questions to answer-questions that will not stop now that the story has finally come out. He apparently is hiding something. He does not want to own up to being the father of the child, and he does not want to admit any connection to a lot of money that has been paid to Ms Hunter to move her around the country and support her.

    This story is not going away any time soon. Nor should it.

    gary fouse
    fousesquawk

© 2003 - 2009 Sister Toldjah • All Rights Reserved

Powered by: WordPress • Design by: E.Webscapes • Hosted by: Hosting Matters