The Six Degrees of Rielle Hunter

Rielle Hunter's ex-husband is a lawyer who is also the son of former Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter, infamous for his handling or mishandling, depending on your view, of the JonBenet Ramsey murder. Rielle Hunter and Alexander "Kip" Munro Hunter III were married for 10 years.

Here's more on Fred Baron, the Dallas lawyer and former John Edwards campaign chief who provided relocation funds (his own, not the campaign's) to Hunter and Andrew Young to relocate.

Hunter also was the inspiration for the Alison Poole party-girl character in Jay McInerney's book, Story of My Life. More on Hunter here.

The New York Times tries to figure out why politicians go on TV to do mea culpas.

Narcissism doesn’t lead politicians to believe that they can have an affair and get away with it. It leads them to believe that they can go on television and dispel it.


I'm still interested in the possible shakedown angle. I'm not reading anything about Rielle Hunter that leads me to believe she's got anything but her own financial interests at heart. The Enquirer told Wolf Blitzer to assume it had paid for the photos and news tips.

Hunter's sister is now demanding a DNA test. She also claims Hunter " was not involved in "setting up" Edwards at the hotel meeting." So what? She didn't have to set it up -- the question is, once it was set up, did she agree to go along with it? Did she get paid by the Enquirer? Did she share in the money the Enquirer paid to anyone else? How much?

Some media outlets are focused on whether "hush money" was paid to Hunter to buy her silence. I think they should be asking whether she or her pals were demanding Edwards pay money in exchange for anything.

< George Orwell's Diaries | Dems Agree on Platform For Convention >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Did Young leave his wife and... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Shainzona on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 04:13:14 PM EST
    is he now with Hunter and the baby?

    Where/how does he fit into this whole thing?  If he has acknowledged that he is the father and moved in with her, why in the world would anyone else pay her $15,000 a month to keep quiet?  Did Edwards address why he went to the hotel to see her and her baby?

    I get the immpression (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Salo on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:07:41 PM EST
    That Hunter has her own point to prove on some level.

    Paid for but cancelled. (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:16:14 PM EST
    Cancellation of her Edwards films might have been one reason. Or being dumped by him. Or both. She says she is not that political. The entire thing is not making a lot of sense right now.

    I'd doubt much of anything (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:22:59 PM EST
    she says right now.  She's got the entire nation looking at her and with that kind of pressure, it's likely she'll edit her story to make herself look as good as possible.  

    How many of us would admit the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth without having to be under oath?

    Ego first, everything else after.  


    She seemed very relaxed on (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Xanthe on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:27:19 PM EST
    Fox.  My impression:  she likes the camera - is she an aspiring actress?



    When was she on Fox? Help! Please. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Angel on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:44:59 PM EST
    Whoops - answering comment downstairs - (none / 0) (#47)
    by Xanthe on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 06:08:43 PM EST

    Rielle doesn't want a paternity test...why? (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 08:31:35 PM EST
    They cancelled them? (none / 0) (#24)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:19:41 PM EST
    I wonder what her contract said and if she could still use the pieces to promote herself to get other work.

    She got $114K for 4 webisodes. (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:35:33 PM EST
    She had no prior experience. I would be happy with that, if it were me!

    Was that her personal take (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:50:14 PM EST
    or was it all inclusive? Something like that could be broken out several ways. I've done projects that were all inclusive or partial or not at all. If she was strictly making them for the web, sounds high. I won't address the lack of experience part, lol!~

    Do you if they are around anywhere for viewing?


    Read that they were on his campaign (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 06:01:45 PM EST
    site but don't know about now. Don't know the details on pay just read the 114K number. I'm no help at all! Did read that one webisode was only 2 1/2 minutes long.

    Go to Huff Post and track this... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Shainzona on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 07:00:56 PM EST
    subject backwards several stories.  They reference previous comments/posts and if you look through a few of them you'll fing a link to all four that were produced.

    They are around!  Edwards acts like a besotted 15 year old.


    Thanks! (none / 0) (#81)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 08:08:55 PM EST
    I'm interested in seeing the finished product vs $$$  {grin}. You can have a short piece that costs a pretty penny . . . or not  ;)

    I read back when this (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 07:00:56 PM EST
    was first made public that Andrew Young and his family, wife, children, became friends with Hunter and she visited them frequently.

    You might Google to find that.  I will try too.


    Never mind (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 07:06:03 PM EST
    I found it and it was in the Enquirer.

    Thanks - it would be helpful to see what... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Shainzona on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 07:01:54 PM EST
    that side of the triangle has been doing/saying - at least in terms of trying to figure out Edward's current role in things.

    When I said last night (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Jim J on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 04:25:43 PM EST
    that the child was probably indeed his, you told me to stop speculating and "blog-clogging."

    Now you're talking about hush money, extortion, and, in a totally non sequitur fashion, the freaking JonBenet Ramsey case.


    I said it probably wasn't true, and I was wrong... (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by bmc on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 04:37:30 PM EST
    When the Enquirer story broke, I didn't want to believe it was true. So, I was in denial. But, now that it's out, I think more and more I'm coming to the conclusion that Elizabeth should have said to him that if he planned to run for President, he should get out ahead of this from the get/go. Get it behind him, control the media coverage of it. I cannot believe they thought they could keep this quiet for a presidential campaign. That shows incredibly bad judgment from both of them. And, I do feel great empathy with Elizabeth Edwards; we come from the same kind of family background.

    And, this is a good assessment of the sad truths about media coverage of it all...


    Good link (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:02:34 PM EST
    I read that opinion.  The days for Woodward and Bernstein are over.  Publishers like Katherine Graham are gone as well.

    There are no more reporters with shoe-leather-to-the-ground digging up stories, interviewing people and getting the nitty-gritty of the news.

    I'm not advocating the intrusion of people's personal lives, but, when it comes to serious issues there should be full-bore reporting.  

    After reading ALL the comments and the back and forths on TL (I was at a party last night and missed all the brou-ha-ha), I think that people should just take a deep breath and chill out.  Although it is being asked to react to the possible crime of extortion with regard to Edwards, and not focus on the morality, that is going to be next to impossible.

    Like that Sex and the City episode,  the act of cheating isn't cheating unless you get caught.  Forest?  Tree falling anyone?


    woodward and berstein did not (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by sancho on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:03:54 AM EST
    dig up a story so much as follow fbi bigshot mark felt's guided directions. they were stenographers who did a little research. something to keep in mind about the timing of stories like these. stories often find their media outlets, not the other way around.

    Thank youi! (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:34:52 AM EST
    Why would any say that Elizabeth is responsible for her husband's less-than-honorable actions?!  Or that she could control what he did?  If she could control him,  he wouldn't have had ANY affairs with anyone!  

    We don't quite know (none / 0) (#13)
    by Salo on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:06:01 PM EST
    how much of this is Hunter trying to damage Edwards or if she's simply ensuring her child's financial future.  Hope it's just her trying to get a good child support settlement and not revenge.

    I thought it might have been true, but I really didn't care a great deal. It doesn't really have the oddity of the Spitzer affair.


    spitzer (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:09:48 PM EST
    was about prostitution.  that was definitely fodder for the press, esp the conservative press considering the stances spitzer took against the bad guys and what-not.

    At least Spitzer (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by miriam on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 10:00:14 PM EST
    didn't go on TV and announce he didn't love what-was-her-name. Sex for money has the dubious virtue of being fairly straightforward  This Edwards story seems much more smarmy to me.  So many aspects are sadly sordid, the worst being his flight from reporters and hiding in a Men's Room until he was "rescued by security".  What an absolute craven dope.

    Well, Spitzer (none / 0) (#117)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 10:54:31 PM EST
    dragged his wife out in front of the cameras for a prop.

    That was painful to watch whether it was her choice or not.  Reminded me of Gary Hart and his wife.



    And Governor Jim McGreevy (none / 0) (#137)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:32:51 AM EST
    I couldn't believe his wife, standing by his side, when he admits that he's gay and had affairs.  Only heaven knows how McGreevy got his poor wife to do that.  She must have been in shock, or something.  

    Maybe that one (none / 0) (#146)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 01:21:33 AM EST
    was part of the 'divorce agreement'...pretty bitter as I think I've read.

    Nothing like a nice legally (none / 0) (#18)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:12:30 PM EST
    binding court order...

    It's amazing the things they have laws for these days!


    Do we know how the NE got the original story? (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 04:48:03 PM EST
    There was someone who alerted them in the beginning in Oct 06. As I have stated previously, there are snitches all over LA and especially Beverly Hills. There is no way you visit the Beverly Hilton and be not seen by a staff member. The first calls were probably right to the NE which pays decently for gossip like that.

    Hell....there are ads on Craigslist where (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:12:46 PM EST
    they offer money to tip them off about celebrity
    sightings, etc...

    I disagree on this. (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:40:34 PM EST
    There may be "snitches" all over LA but the people who work in industries that are dependent on celebrity clientele are least likely to snitch.  For one thing, most of them get paid well not to.  Another reason is because it's hard to get another job if you become known as a snitch.  Many of these companies have employment agreements that workers have to sign stating they won't snitch, harrass these people, ask for autographs, etc.  So, it's not that easy to find a snitch in LA.  (Look at what happened to that guy in the police or sheriff's department who spilled the Mel Gibson story.)  

    Secondly, the NE doesn't buy info based on "someone who might know something."  They usually get someone who is actually involved in the story.  People who work in hotels may see people coming and going, but they don't know what happens behind closed doors.  Over the years, I've known two people who've sold stories to the NE and both were intimately involved in the story.  

    I think the kind of gossip you are referring to is more common with people alerting the paparazzi for photos.  The market for photos is very competitive.  The market for "paid stories" is considerably smaller.  Legitimate media (LA Times, etc.) won't pay for info because it's considered unreliable.    


    funny calling the LA Times "legitimate" (none / 0) (#154)
    by blcc on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 08:11:05 AM EST
    As media goes, their reputation for legitimacy has been sinking for a long, LONG time.

    she'd have been the source (none / 0) (#9)
    by Salo on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:01:27 PM EST
    It's the most simple explaination. She's looking out for her child's financial future--The Father's reputation be damned.

    A Provable Shakedown would be unlikely. Yet  child support does feel like a shekedown if you reckon the woman was trying to trap you.


    Hunter refuses to participate in DNA test (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Josey on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 06:01:39 PM EST
    but Edwards welcomes a paternity test.
    But the media will continue their Obama-style "news" mania - focusing on Edwards now more than they did during the primary - while ignoring the record number of U.S. soldiers' deaths in Afghanistan, FBI unlawfully tracking reporters' phone records, Bush forging documents to sell the Iraq War, etc. - all secondary to burying John Edwards, considered an "enemy" of  corporate media and their corporate sponsors.

    Where did you read she refused? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 06:04:02 PM EST
    was on one of the networks tonight (none / 0) (#46)
    by Josey on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 06:07:20 PM EST
    Maybe NBC.

    it's on wapo (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Little Fish on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 06:23:11 PM EST

    I really hate that the right is relishing this.


    Thanks. I read a statement from her sister (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 06:39:04 PM EST
    insisting he should be tested. Oops.

    Why would her sister care? (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 11:13:56 PM EST
    Surely her sister knows who the father is.  

    I have to wonder if Edwards made a deal with Hunter, he would offer a DNA test and she would refuse, for some amount of money, or something else.


    Her sister only knows for sure (none / 0) (#126)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 11:39:00 PM EST
    who Lisa told her the father is. That doesn't make it true.

    It isn't easy to conceive at 41 years old. Not impossible, but not easy. Maybe she doesn't want paternity testing because she picked the donor who most looked like JE.


    She moved to the West Coast in 2008. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:27:01 PM EST
    Don't think they met at the Hilton before. This time, the NE guy saw him enter the building so NE guy was already waiting for him. NE guy described his clothing which doesn't match that photo of JE and the baby they printed. NE does say they met one time previously that they know of. NE printed stories in Oct and Dec 2007. It's all very confusing.

    met before (none / 0) (#67)
    by CHDmom on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 07:07:14 PM EST
    Last night on Fox, the NE guy said they met at the same hotel in June, but didn't say what time of day, (of course details will be in next issue)

    good chance it is his kid (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Salo on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 04:57:42 PM EST
    might not be his OTOH. Fascinating expose. Hunter has obviously been blabbing about the baby and affair to a lot of people though. I suppose Edwards is going to get the proverbial book thrown at him by the press and pundits.

    Enjoy your Universal Health Care you crazy kids, you.

    Who did Hunter blab to? (none / 0) (#141)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:50:39 AM EST
    Mistakes Famous People Make (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:37:01 PM EST
    I hope this is not too OT.  But watching JE's ABC interview, he kept refering specifically to his affair as a 'mistake'.  He said it several times and I think even corrected the interviewer once with it.

    I was reminded of a column in Salon discussing the use of the word 'mistake' after Marion Jones was tagged for the drugs investigation thing.  It seems to be the newest non-apology apology word among those that get caught out:

    Jones says she trusted her track coach, Trevor Graham, when he gave her the THG and told her it was flaxseed oil.

    That's a mistake. Lying about it for half a decade or more, that's a way of life. It's a pattern of deception. It might even be some kind of pathology. Jones didn't wake up one day and say, "I made a mistake here. I should tell the truth." She ran out of options. She got caught.

    By repeating the 'mistake' mantra, it seems as if JE is trying to create a story where he should be forgiven, or at least given a pass, for his actions.  After all, we all make mistakes, who are we to judge another for making them?  

    I'm not so down with that.  I really wish just once a politician or sports star or whoever would just say:  "I was wrong.  I did a very wrong thing.  There is no excuse.  It was bad.  I'm sorry to everyone who was hurt by this."

    Mistake? (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by lentinel on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:56:29 PM EST
    How could it be a mistake?
    Did he do whatever he did to the wrong person?
    Did he mean to do what he was doing to someone else and then saw it was Hunter and said, "Oops"?

    It was no mistake.
    He knew what he was doing.

    And now, he's back on t.v.


    The mistake was (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 07:01:39 PM EST
    that he got caught.  If he hadn't gotten caught, it would have simply been his "secret."  ;-)

    About that word "mistake"... (none / 0) (#43)
    by christinep on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 06:03:15 PM EST
    It does sort of have a passive, soothing quality, doesn't it? Actually, that is part of what I see as really noticeable about the Edwards interview. Almost too smooth. Almost pitch-perfect voice. Etc. I truly understood what a good courtroom lawyer he must have been.  For me, tho, it would have helped if the blue eyes were a little bloodshot or tired looking--too blue and unclouded. It would have helped if it didn't flow so smoothly.  And, for specifics, it would have helped if he had not clearly "fuzzied up" the time issues when questioned by Woodruff. And, certainly, it would have really been something to hear him address more fully the matter of his running for President simultaneously with the affair and his condescending, condemnatory statements about others in politics doing the same thing that he was doing.

    The new Secretary of Faith (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 06:39:05 PM EST
    will make it simple.

    Not a mistake.

    It was a sin.


    He didn't make a mistake - he made (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 08:00:40 PM EST
    a decision.  Anyone with half a brain, when faced with the choice of having an affair or staying faithful to his wife, would have known that Door #1 was the wrong decision.  Maybe ego and hubris made him believe he could have it all - have the affair and not get caught - but the choice he made is not indicative of someone with good risk/benefit analysis skills.

    He was the candidate I supported until he dropped out.  I really believed he would be the best advocate for the people for whom no one speaks: the poor, the uninsured, the children.

    And what makes me angry is not that he was just like any other stupid man who allowed his you-know-what to take over his thinking, it is that Hillary probably now stands alone in being the strong advocate for those causes, and her stock in the party, with the people who can help make it happen, is not all that high.


    What pisss me off the most (none / 0) (#86)
    by Salo on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 08:17:55 PM EST
    is that a private citizen is getting this treatment.

    There is no offcie for him to resign from.

    It's a bit surreal.


    Isn't that a little simplistic? (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by blcc on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 08:21:00 AM EST
    He's a private citizen who just happened to throw Obama a couple dozen delegates and some public support at time when Obama needed it?  Perhaps in exchange for a vice-presidency offer at a convention which will occur later this month?  Or an Atty General position in a Cabinet which might be selected early next year?  And coincidentally foreshortening Hillary's chances of running for the same office?

    It's not like he's some random guy off the street.  Just because he doesn't currently hold an elected office doesn't mean this isn't legitimate political news.  


    I too liked JRE a lot at first and Elizabeth (none / 0) (#175)
    by hairspray on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 06:46:16 PM EST
    was a strong part of that.  But I felt that his confrontational approach could be  counterproductive.  However, both he and HRC seemed to be fighters for the FDR Democrats I believe in.  When JRE asked Obama and Clinton to stand for his "constituents" I saw Hillary do that, but not so BHO. I really lost respect for him when in spite of HRC's "accepting of his mantle" he turned around and joined BHO in Michigan (nice touch!) and endorsed and campaigned with Obama.  The current crisis simply confirms my distaste for him.

    I made a mistake (none / 0) (#58)
    by RalphB on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 06:50:29 PM EST
    is a little better than 'mistakes were made', but not much better.

    Am I the only one (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Steve M on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 08:30:06 PM EST
    who has no interest whatsoever in however the details of this story play out?

    Definitely not. My interest ends at (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by MarkL on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 08:34:17 PM EST
    having Edwards smarmy hypocrisy exposed.
    I don't care that he had an affair.

    In a Jerry Springeresque (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 09:16:50 PM EST
    fashion, I do.

    I am interested in what the truth is - it's kind of like playing a game of Clue - there are suspects all over the place, and every suspect is also a possible victim.  It will also be interesting to see which narratives the media will push.  Who will the media support?  Who will the media tar and feather?  Why?  What does that say about our society?


    I go back and forth (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Little Fish on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 11:10:15 PM EST
    I'm not interested in the affair part, in as much as it's between John/Elizabeth and I do wish to afford them privacy on the matter. On the other hand I was a pretty big supporter of the Edwards campaign and I feel he owes it to us to explain things. I initially wasn't going to watch the Nightline interview, but after reading Elizabeth's post at DK yesterday I figured I should as it might provide some closure. However, it just opened up more questions for me. I donated time & money, years of support, and my vote* to a campaign that I deeply believed in and I took some heat for that. Now...I don't know. It was a big part of my life and I don't want it to end on this note.

    I do appreciate the coverage Jeralyn has given this topic. This blog is head and shoulders above most out there.

    *I switched my caucus vote to Hillary after the first ballot so it wasn't a waste.


    I'm interested in certain aspects of it (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 11:24:36 PM EST
    but not interested enough to go out and read everything I can find on it.  I guess I'll just wait for the media to reveal whatever they find as it happens.  

    I am curious why John Edwards thought he should run for President with this in his "recent" closet.  

    I'm also curious why the MSM doesn't do a very good job with investigative journalism anymore.  I'm really disillusioned with them -- ever since it was discovered that Judy Miller was running the White House promotional press department for the NYT.  I'm also finding it curious that the NYT ran the John McCain non-affair on the front page with no sources -- yet with JE & RH, they merely called them up and said "Did you do this?" and hearing "No," they decided there was no story.  

    The NYT used to represent the very best in the USA.  Now it seems like they are running the Podunk Herald.  


    if you aren't interested (none / 0) (#108)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 09:43:04 PM EST
    then please scroll on by.

    I am interested (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Steve M on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 09:44:54 PM EST
    in knowing whether others feel as I do.

    I hope I would never be so presumptuous as to question your choice of blogging topics!  Obviously many people are interested in discussing this.


    Why are people so quick to throw this woman (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:11:04 AM EST
    Under the bus?  She hasn't said anything.  There is ZERO evidence that she did anything other than sleep with Edwards?  She wasn't even married!  Unlike Edwards, she wasn't violating any vows made to a spouse.  Yet some are thinking she's part of some extortion ring?  Based on what?!  Isn't it rather sexist to assume that she's the 'bad guy' in the affair?  

    When JE was asked about paternity last night, he said he was only one part of the testing, as if he KNEW she would refuse testing.  I'd bet dollars to donuts that they made a deal, he would volunteer for paternity test and she would refuse it.  How convenient for JE.  

    I would also bet dollars to donuts that Hunter wasn't his first affair.  Men don't suddenly begin having affairs with women they don't even love, when they're in their 50's.  That stuff begins much earlier.  Hunter wasn't his only 'mistake'.    

    I beg your pardon (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 09:20:04 AM EST
    A mature woman who carries on an affair with a married man, a presidential candidate no less, apparently without contraceptive protection, is hardly an innocent party.  The primary fault is certainly Edwards's, but this is no naive and innocent child here.

    I never said she was an innocent. (none / 0) (#181)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:24:45 PM EST
    But Edwards behavior can't be excused by making her into a tramp or criminal.  

    That's what I thought too (none / 0) (#136)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:32:43 AM EST
    after I read the Newsweek story, about Elizabeth's "unfriendliness."  

    This wouldn't be his first affair.  


    I'm pretty uninterested in Rielle and her (4.33 / 3) (#26)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:23:58 PM EST

    Perhaps I'm just gunshy from watching years of the woman in any controversial event being cast as the evil, conniving b*tch from hell, starting with the Anita Hill hearings in the 90s (if not before).  Or, really, being cast that way even if not involved in anything even remotely controversial.

    But as for Rielle's part in this -- doesn't matter.  It doesn't ameliorate anything Edwards did.

    Maybe she's the most horrible person on the planet, but she's not a public figure and she wasn't running for president.  She wasn't going on tv leveraging her solid family values story for votes.

    If there is extortion, then it should be investigated and prosecuted (or not) with the same vigor (or not) as would an incident that did not involve a famous politician.  If there are campaign fund violations, same thing.

    Not remotely controversial? (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by akaEloise on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:57:44 PM EST
    She had an affair with a married man -- she could hardly have not known he was married.  She failed to use contraception or to take advantage of the opportunity to end her unplanned pregnancy.   Even if your personal moral standards excuse adultery, she's irresponsible and selfish.

    Maybe she wanted the baby - (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by nulee on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 06:01:01 PM EST
    ever think of that?

    Ummm.... (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by NWHiker on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 06:04:23 PM EST
    He should have been using condoms.

    Bad enough to cheat on your wife. Worse to father a child. Worsest? To bring HIV home with you. And yes, it happened to a friend's sister.


    Oooops. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by NWHiker on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 06:11:31 PM EST
    Replying to myself to add that my comment is of course only relevant if a) it was not a planned pregnancy by both parties and b) JE is the father.

    Exactly what I was thinking. Today it (none / 0) (#174)
    by hairspray on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 06:35:40 PM EST
    is in a woman's interest carry a pregnancy to term if the men involved are rich and powerful.  Why don't the guys understand that if they don't want this to become a baby they need to TAKE THEIR OWN PRECAUTIONS! That is the stupidity as I see it.

    First of all, the only thing we know for sure is (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 06:11:59 PM EST
    that she had an affair with a married man. And he committed adultery; where I come from, it still takes two to tango.

    At this stage, we do not even know who the father of the child is - assuming it is Edwards is, at best, a 50-50 guess.

    We do not know who was responsible for contraception, but we do know that all forms of contraception, except for abstinence, have a failure rate.  And expecting her to take advantage of her ability to terminate the pregnancy is an expectation that none of us has the right to - if the choice was hers, it was hers.  Period.

    I'm pretty much at the point where I'm not sure any of the people involved in this have any credibility, but I don't pretend to be able to make flat-out statements about the details - you shouldn't be doing it, either.


    Maybe the father is (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 06:15:24 PM EST
    donor #947.

    Wonder why she's reluctant to participate in a DNA test. Her sister called for JE to participate in one, so it seems her sister is of the impression JE is the father.


    What's in it for her? (none / 0) (#83)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 08:13:11 PM EST
    The DNA test doesn't do much for her; it only clears JE (if he's telling the truth).  I don't think she's ever claimed he was the father, did she?

    What's in it for her? $$$. And lots of it if (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Angel on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 08:23:01 PM EST
    the baby is his.  

    And the inevitable book (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by miriam on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 10:05:53 PM EST
    she writes will have more monetary value if she can be coy about the father's identity.  That poor little kid.  Can you imagine having this pair (or two of this trio) for  parents?

    She's already getting lots of money from Edward's (none / 0) (#121)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 11:19:16 PM EST

    He is a married man (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 06:55:35 PM EST
    who had an affair with a campaign worker.  He has as much responsibility to use protection as she does.

    Both are responsible. However, the more powerful, can go on television broadcast around the world and say 'I don't love her".


    And how is it that you know (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 07:45:28 PM EST
    that he didn't use protection?  We don't even know if the child is his, so why are you already assuming Edwards is responsible for the pregnancy and that it is the result of him failing to use contraception?

    He may well be the father, but as I stated above, the only method of contraception that cannot fail is abstinence - none of the other methods are 100%.

    For Edwards to announce that he didn't love Hunter doesn't help his case with the public one iota.  Nor does his making sure we know that Elizabeth was in remission at the time.

    I don't have much respect for people who cheat on their spouses.  I have less respect for someone who knew what high regard people had for his wife, and talked about his wonderful marriage at every opportunity, spoke in very derogatory terms about Bill Clinton's failings, and then proceeded to cheat on his wife and then lie about it every time he was asked about it.  Should he have been asked?  Perhaps not.  But not asking doesn't obviate the behavior.

    Those who worked closest with and hardest for Edwards are boiling over with anger - and I don't blame them.


    None of the above (none / 0) (#163)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 10:14:21 AM EST
    I was responding to the post that states she should have used protection.  I know nothing.

    I have a feeling that the child is not his. Just speculating like others but they had two younger children by choice I assume and speculate that was it.


    Disgusting (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 11:21:37 PM EST
    Claiming that he never loved her just makes him a user of women.  He did it because he COULD and for no other reason.  What a sleaze ball.  

    Are you kidding? (none / 0) (#157)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 09:25:10 AM EST
    The only person on the planet the TV would like to have talk about this on camera more than Edwards is Rielle Hunter!  She can go on TV any damn time she wants.

    Please.  Let's not pretend she doesn't have access to a huge public platform to state her case.


    Why does she need to state her case? (none / 0) (#161)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 10:06:09 AM EST
    Does she need to explain when, what, why and where to the public?

    I don't think so.


    She doesn't needt to particularly (none / 0) (#165)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 10:58:14 AM EST
    but if she wants to, she's certainly got it.  The implication of your comment above, which I perhaps misunderstood, was that Edwards had a public plaform available to him that she didn't have.  I was just pointing out that she has just as much of a platform available if she wants to tell her side of the story.

    I see your point (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:42:52 PM EST
    I agree.

    not remotely controversial (4.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 07:14:48 PM EST
    I think you missed the point.  I didn't say Hunter did nothing remotely controversial.

    What I'm tired of is the rush to find reasons why the female in any scenario is b*tchy, trampy, money-grubbing etc.  And it happens even when the 'she' hasn't done anything controversial, so I'm skeptical even here, where she may have.

    No need to insult me by implying anything about my 'moral standards'.

    You have no idea whether she used contraception or not, and last I knew, it takes two to tango.  Hell, you don't even know if the kid is his.

    It's the rush to demonize I object to.  One minute no one believes any of this could possibly be true while the story is about JE, hero of the netroots and superprogressives, the next minute everyone's sure SHE's guilty of criminal extortion and a money-grubbing b*tch besides.  The extortion riff doesn't even have an Enquirer article to support it.

    No matter how bad she is, her actions and her bad acts (whatever they may actually be, rather than speculated to be) do not excuse, justify, or ameliorate what Edwards did.

    Casting the women as the crazed, immoral cat has been the sexist get-out-of-jail free card for men since time immemorial.  I watched every minute of the Anita Hill hearings and it is EXACTLY the way they destroyed her credibility and gave us -- guess who?  -- Clarence Thomas as a S.Ct. justice.


    Great post (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:46:13 AM EST
    I am so sick of women being thrown under the bus, called names, made to look like tramps, and even conspirators, to excuse the behavior of some sleaze ball married man.  

    Why do women do this to other women?!  I expect more from democrat women.  I expect them to respect other women and not use and abuse them to excuse the behavior of a philandering man.  

    Let's remember, it was not Hunter who was married, it was John Edwards.  It was John Edwards who broke his vows with Elizabeth.  It was John Edwards who hurt his wife by breaking his vows.  Hunter didn't marry Elizabeth Edwards, she took no such vows of fidelity.  John Edwards did.  Why can't we hold him responsible, for what he did to his wife and children, without making up silly stuff about Hunter to make her look bad?  No matter how strange Hunter may be, making her into some kind of tramp or criminal, does nothing to excuse Edward's behavior.  She didn't drag him into bed against his will.  

    Let''s stop trying to make Hunter the bad guy so that ''our guy" looks less sleazy.  It's an ugly think to do to a woman.  


    In this case, Hunter deserves to be (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 01:45:22 AM EST
    under the bus.  There is no possible way that she didn't know John Edwards was married.  No way.  

    She CHOSE to have an affair with a man who already had a wife.

    I've known so many women in my lifetime who've decided to have affairs with guys who were married.  Some liked the hidden/secretive nature of it all.  Some thought that these men would eventually leave their wives rather than thinking the guy was just looking for some new grass to graze on.  Some of them actually had their dream come true -- the guy left his wife -- only to discover that the same guy was cheating on them further down the road.  

    Some men actually lie and say they are single when they aren't, and their lives are set up in such a way that the "other woman" can't easily find out.  (Those women, I feel sorry for, because they think they have found an unattached man.)

    Some married men establish emotional relationships with other women without any sexual aspect to the relationship at all -- and those women shouldn't be blamed.  

    But what Hunter did -- getting into a sexual relationship with a married man -- she's as guilty as he is.  

    Women need to learn that there is no "high ground" in having an affair with a married man.  Not if you know he is married, even if you are single.  

    And this has nothing to do with politics.  Republican, Democrat, Independent, Non-voter -- who cares?  


    I'm with you, Grace (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 09:37:51 AM EST
    When I was young and beautiful (cough) I got hit on by married men all the time.  Sometimes I was pretty darn tempted, too.  After all, their marriage is their business.  Why should I be required to protect it when they weren't?  But I had a choice and I never knowingly got involved with a married man.

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by blcc on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 10:06:54 AM EST
    That happened to me too, but I was never tempted.  

    I was always shocked and saddened by the man's disrespect of his wife and his vows, and turned-off by the vaguely pathetic aura which attached itself to him as a result.


    Valhalla, neither did (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 09:34:51 AM EST
    anyone here, or in media that I've heard, say her bad acts "excuse, justify or ameliorate" what Edwards did.

    But neither is she an innocent victim in this.  She knowingly engaged in an affair with a married man, a presidential candidate, and that's just as much of a "mistake" as Edwards's.  Takes two to tango and all that.

    That calls her judgment and her honesty into question in my mind just as much as it does Edwards's.

    There are some peculiar and as yet unresolved aspects to this story, and I don't think it's unreasonable to speculate about her motivations and what role she's been playing.  She is an active participant with her own will and her own perceived needs, not a passive victim.


    Gyrfalcon, I don't argue that she is (none / 0) (#170)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 01:18:14 PM EST
    innocent or not an inert participant.

    But all we know about her is that she had an affair with a married man.  Yet suddenly she's a criminal extortionist?  Conniving, money-grubbing and opportunistic?

    But how many comments have been both lengthy and focused on all the reasons why JE can be excused for his behavior, along with the argument that it's private and none of anyone's business?

    If JE's behavior is private and none of my business even though he's politician, then isn't her behavior at least as private and none of our business?

    I can reel off multiple scenarios for her actions that don't cast her as an extortionist or worse slurs -- maybe she really loves him, maybe the child is his and she wants the child to know its father, maybe she's one of those fairy-tale happily ever after sorts of women who believe once they find their true love they'll gallop off into the sunset, maybe she's attracted to power as so many women and men are, maybe she couldn't help herself, maybe SHE made a mistake and regrets it.

    Any one of them has as much evidence as the excuses for JE being thrown around.


    Let's also not forget (2.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Iris on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 01:51:33 PM EST
    that no one wanted to believe this story was true and everyone was very tepid in discussing it at all (myself included), and that part of the reason was that there was no evidence that was considered credible.  Now when it comes to Hunter, the speculation runs rampant.  Who wants to lay odds that the OFB is going to blame the whole situation on Hunter, without, as you say, even a NE article to back it up?

    what was the payoff for Fred Baron? (none / 0) (#63)
    by Josey on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 07:01:31 PM EST
    >>>Fred Baron, the Dallas lawyer and former John Edwards campaign chief who provided relocation funds (his own, not the campaign's) to Hunter and Andrew Young to relocate.

    I'm not suggesting Edwards did or didn't know about Baron's funds to Hunter.
    Maybe the baby isn't Andrew Young's?
    Maybe Hunter doesn't want to take a DNA test and spoil the narrative?


    It's not Young's child (none / 0) (#140)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:49:52 AM EST
    Andrew Young and his wife took Hunter into their home with their children.  If Mrs. Young thought that there was ANY chance Hunter was her husband's mistress, who here believes that she would have taken Hunter into her home?  

    Edwards told Baron and Young to take care of the situation and they did.  Seems simple enough to me.  


    More and more it looks like Edwards (none / 0) (#2)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 04:17:50 PM EST
    should just have kept mum.

    Silence=Death (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 04:55:02 PM EST
    and in this case, the prolonged silence and denial did him in.

    the mother is prolly the NE source (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Salo on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:02:30 PM EST
    ah paternity.  It's  such a blessing.

    Whatever the relationship was between JE & RH, (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 06:08:56 PM EST
    He must have felt he knew her well enough to believe she would remain quiet for a fairly long time. That's not exactly a short, nothing really to it trist.

    It's been nearly 16 months since conception, and something happened recently to make him think she was going to talk, it appears.


    Jon Benet? John Edwards? What? (none / 0) (#6)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 04:53:54 PM EST
    This truly is getting into National Enquirer territory.

    Extortion (none / 0) (#12)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:05:23 PM EST
    had to be in play, or else why would JE go before the media firing squad and had to admit that the National Enquirer, THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER! was right?? Had to be a hard pill to swallow.

    The NE is not bad, for that kind of (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by MarkL on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:08:25 PM EST

    Do you think they put up Presidential seals? (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:19:08 PM EST
    I mean, this is the Second Presidential candidate they got. Gary Hart and the Monkey Business. I am thinking they put up little Presidential seals of who they got.

    NE exposed Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Josey on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 06:55:36 PM EST
    Not sure if they exposed Sen. Vitter's preference of wearing diapers with a hooker.

    Well, Gary Hart was an idiot (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 07:18:28 PM EST
    He dared reporters to follow him around and find evidence of his alleged adultery, then got caught out with pics of him and pal Donna Rice on a boat called the Monkey Business*.

    Hint to hubris-riddled:  don't dare the media to investigate your scandal-riddled life!

    * some things really do make me believe in karma.


    Gary Hart did it with JJ? Wow. (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by MarkL on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 08:08:55 PM EST
    He looked great in those pics, back then!

    LOL (none / 0) (#152)
    by Josey on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 07:13:43 AM EST
    I wasn't thinking of that angle with Hart and Jackson.

    MIami Herald (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 09:47:43 AM EST
    Actually, it was the Miami Herald that followed Hart and got him going into whatshername's home in the evening and not coming out until the next morning.

    The NE's "Monkey Business" pic was, if I remember right, the day before the MH story, so not much time to react to it before the MH caught him in the act.


    Oops, I stand corrected n/t (none / 0) (#171)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 01:20:17 PM EST
    btw MarkL (none / 0) (#17)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:10:28 PM EST
    you need to out your friend's hubby.  

    I say so too! (none / 0) (#57)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 06:48:14 PM EST
    Would hope my gay son would issue a warning to either him or her, what with AIDS still around.  Nothing like ignorance to get a person in real trouble.

    Thanks, (none / 0) (#87)
    by MarkL on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 08:20:36 PM EST
    that's what I thought too.

    Ann Landers or one of them (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:51:58 AM EST
    Gave that advice a long time ago.  Tell the philandering spouse that HE has to tell his wife.  

    Last night your comment/question (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by shoephone on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 02:14:28 AM EST
    made it sound as though you are not close friends with the wife, but merely "somewhat" friends. Don't tell her. Only a very close friend or relative should ever get that involved in someone else's personal matter. She will undoubtedly find out another way, and anyway, how can you be sure she doesn't already know?

    Take him aside and put him on notice if you wish. But if it were me, I would not even consider involving myself in that scenario unless I was exceptionally close to the person and knew they would want me to inform them.


    no! (none / 0) (#106)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 09:38:33 PM EST
    ur giving him room to perpetuate his lying ways.  when i get posed with someone is cheating on someone do u tell or stay quiet.

    i think about how I WOULD feel. i would want to know.  ASAP!  the other barometer is how would i feel if my dad or mom was cheating on the other?  that did happen but i was 4 and couldn't do anything about it.

    either one would catch holy heck from me that's for darn sure!


    Yes, that's the best advice. Put the guy (none / 0) (#91)
    by Angel on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 08:23:52 PM EST
    on notice.  And give him a deadline.

    when the Inquirer (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Salo on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:13:13 PM EST
    does an expose on granny dumping at USC's Hospital or that sort of thing then i'd be the first to defend their editorial style.  There's a such a thing as proving a point and still being a useless blot on the landscape.

    hmph! sounds elitist (none / 0) (#22)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:18:25 PM EST
    to me!  

    When is infotainment bad? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:25:02 PM EST
    When it's 99% pure or 80% pure or 50% pure?

    So if the National Enquirer tossed in a story about the Georgia/Russian conflict next issue, would that redeem them?


    The big Elephant in the room in any Dem scandal (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ellie on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:38:19 PM EST
    ... kept alive by feedings of meat to the media* is the partisan (ab)use of government resources for illicit spying by an admin -- an Repug party -- that has had no compunction about doing it for decades now.

    Telcom spying? Nads-out omputer and communications hacking? Come on that's a well-lit pathway with neon billboards saying, "Yo Dem JACKASSES you've been burned by this over and over and over fercrappinoutsideways!"

    I don't excuse or condone any ethical lapses that exploit the public space and public trust. (Criminality should go without saying but we're talking about a time where the law has been reduced from its former majesty to being a voyeuristic beggar and trespasser on its own terrain.

    Nuke my @ss if this is hijackery but sheeeeez this always comes down on Dem frontrunners, stars and up and comers somehow, even generously allowing for the huge IOIYAR factor. (Predictably, it's always after the gratuitous Hair obsession ... the GOP Head'n'Hair one-two punch the right wing Lizard Brain goes for instinctively.)

    The marital and family turmoil isn't my business or interest, though it's a domb way to behave for anyone in public service (and sheesh, it's not like loads of 'safer' sexual alternatives to affairs aren't abundantly availabile.)

    * and note this important qualifier

    Yeah, we've been leaving out the illegal tapping (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by jawbone on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 11:02:22 PM EST
    of Americans within US borders--I'm sure there's someone from BushCo who had access to any interesting tidbits gleaned about all the Dem candidates. All Dem leadership, important donors--hey maybe anyone who's ever voted Dem....

    No need for tinfoil on this one....

    (T/U, Sen Obama, for fighting for out civil liberties and for standing up for the Constitution--Not.)


    I have such a different take on this. (none / 0) (#164)
    by blcc on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 10:15:47 AM EST
    Namely, that the media willfully and blindly tried NOT to report on it for as long as they possibly could - severely damaging their own credibility in the process.

    It's not like Mickey Kaus hasn't been blogging about this for MONTHS.


    The NYT's public editor responded today (none / 0) (#176)
    by hairspray on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 07:16:23 PM EST
    saying that it was such a vague story that in order for them to print it they needed to put resources into an investigation (much like the NE) and they decided that since JRE was no longer in the race it wasn't worth it. They chased Bill C all over town before he was nominated trying to find something on him OTOH.

    I saw it last night - (none / 0) (#36)
    by Xanthe on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:51:35 PM EST
    she said John was open to new things -- something like that.  I cringed.

    caveat:  I can't be sure this wasn't shot before the reveal - though why would they have her on before?  

    I was walking thru the living room on the way out with the dogs.

    Politicians on TV (none / 0) (#37)
    by lentinel on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 05:52:00 PM EST
    Politicians don't just "go on t.v." to talk about their sexual dalliances. They have to be invited to do so.

    I saw some of Edward's spiel.
    It was truly revolting.

    It's as if Edwards is doing to the public what he did to Ms. Hunter.
    And the media is all too happy to provide him with the forum.

    First the media was into his hair.

    into his hair? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Salo on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 06:17:44 PM EST
    well that's not exactly what they were doing on that story.

    It's possible that the affair was common knowledge in the media and they drummed him out on more minor issues.

    Men have affairs. Women too.


    Funny how fate sometimes (none / 0) (#68)
    by zfran on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 07:07:55 PM EST
    intervenes. As Jeralyn pointed out, if Edwards had not run, who knows who the nominee would be. If Edwards had not run, we'd probably have a different Hillary that so many came to know and appreciate. If Edwards had not run, perhaps, for some of us, we'd be in a better frame of mind right now as how much better off we think this country would have been. If only....

    IF (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Angel on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 07:11:47 PM EST
    The biggest small word in the dictionary.

    Edwards voters (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Salo on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 07:33:11 PM EST
    would have gelled around Dodd or Biden or who ever.

    I sure as hell wouldn't have gone with either of (none / 0) (#78)
    by allimom99 on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 07:53:34 PM EST
    those two. Probably would have ended up with Hillary anyway!

    Without Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by ding7777 on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 07:52:44 PM EST
    Obama would not have taken his name off the ballot in MI and FL ...

    I could (none / 0) (#105)
    by weltec2 on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 09:34:42 PM EST
    tear out what little hair I have left with "ifs" especially as it becomes more and more clear to me that Edwards should never have run. If he appears at the Convention, he should be booed off the stage.

    Is there evidence she was pregnant... (2.00 / 0) (#80)
    by NealB on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 08:04:13 PM EST
    ...when Edwards dropped out? When did the Edwards campaign learn she was pregnant?

    During watergate they said follow the money. Here I think it's "follow the sperm."


    She had the baby in February, 2008, (none / 0) (#93)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 08:27:32 PM EST
    so I think it's pretty evident that she was pregnant at the time Edwards suspended, which if I recall correctly, was right after the SC primary - he was out of it before Super Tuesday, which was February 5th.

    He dropped out of the race on Jan 30th, Super (none / 0) (#96)
    by Angel on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 08:31:15 PM EST
    Tuesday was March 4th.  Baby was born end of February, the 27th I think I read.

    I really do believe the impending birth and the possible revelations of the affair (by someone other than the NE) were the impetus behind him dropping out of the race.


    Sorry - but Super Tuesday was Feb. 5th. (none / 0) (#100)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 08:36:16 PM EST
    I know that because the Potomac primary (Md, DC & VA) was the following week - February 12th.  

    March 4th was Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island.


    You're correct. March 4th was my primary. (none / 0) (#102)
    by Angel on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 08:38:24 PM EST
    LOL (none / 0) (#107)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 09:42:22 PM EST
    now THAT is original.  I wonder how Hillary feels about this.  Wonder if she picked up the phone yet and told Elizabeth..."gurl, donchu worry! Stevie Wonder will be 'round to serenade you and make u feel ALL better!"

    Man, if I were half as lucky to have spouses are gifted and intelligent as Elizabeth Edwards or Hillary Clinton I would never wander.  But, then again, I was never at the Thanksgiving table of either of these people's families.


    Oh boy! Breaking news... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 07:35:17 PM EST
    On FOX (Sean Hannity) the National Enquirer guy says that Hunter genuinely loves Edwards and she thinks she's going to marry him someday.  That's why she's willing to bear the brunt of this whole thing.  (I wondered why Hunter didn't want DNA testing.)  

    This story is taking some weird turns...    

    She should seek professional help if she really (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by allimom99 on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 07:51:41 PM EST
    thinks that! Her refusing the test makes no sense in this scenario - she would WANT something to tie him to her and would be deasperate to prove him the father. Where oh where is Maury Povich?

    Except this is coming from Fox (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 08:16:02 PM EST
    not so high on the cred list.

    I heard on NBC she won't test (none / 0) (#89)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 08:21:19 PM EST
    not the love stuff though.

    He's normally spot on (none / 0) (#98)
    by Salo on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 08:32:49 PM EST
    with his oppo.

    Fox is no worse than any other MSM (none / 0) (#167)
    by blcc on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:16:12 PM EST
    they ALL fell down on the job of reporting this story.  Scooped by the National Enquirer and they had to be, essentially, FORCED to cover it at all.

    Shame on all of them.


    Slight correction (none / 0) (#169)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    Actually Fox DID report on the JE affair article, right after it appeared in the NE.  (whether they reported on the Jan. thing I don't know).

    I just happened to see it on Hannity, and I was actually a bit shocked by how scrupulous the correspondent reporter (don't know her name) was about which information had been confirmed and by whom.  It was a particularly careful and (gasp!) fair discussion of the article.


    She has no need to prove it (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:17:19 AM EST
    She knows that the baby is his and so does he.  What would a DNA test do for her?  She's already getting plenty of money.  She loves the guy, as silly as that sounds, she's protecting him.  

    I posted yesterday that I thought she was in love (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Angel on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 08:21:08 PM EST
    with him, and that's why she insisted on a private meeting.  I posited that she was trying to talk him into renewing the relationship, showed him the baby, tried to play his emotions, etc.  

    I feel sorry for her based on what we know so far.  He said publicly that he didn't love her but I bet you anything he promised her he'd be there for her later.  Women who fall for these kinds of guys are usually the losers in the end.  I hope that if the child is his that he takes care of it financially if he isn't willing to be it's father in the real sense of the word.


    Or she wants to believe (none / 0) (#101)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 08:37:35 PM EST
    it's his...

    Or, she just wants him to believe (none / 0) (#127)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 11:50:22 PM EST
    it's his.

    Yes, for a lot of different reasons! (none / 0) (#177)
    by hairspray on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 07:21:02 PM EST
    Unfortunately, the idea that she (none / 0) (#129)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:00:48 AM EST
    is in love with him makes sense.  It would also make sense that that is why she doesn't want a paternity test.  (She already knows who the father is.  She doesn't need the test.)

    Unfortunately, the extortion angle makes sense too...

    But then, one needs to remember that JE spent about 6 hours in that hotel room.  That's a long time if you are just going there to discuss money.  

    If she's in love with him, that must have cut like a dagger when he said he didn't love her.  (Of course, then he could turn around and tell her "I only did it to protect Elizabeth who is ill.")  

    I dunno.  Seems like a mess at this point.  

    I'm still wondering who sold the story to the Enquirer.  The NE admits they paid for this one.  If RH was the one who sold it, she must have felt something good would come out of pushing JE to come out in public with the story...  Maybe she thought he'd agree the kid was his but say that he loved her?  What a mess!      


    You are SO right! (none / 0) (#143)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:53:05 AM EST
    When I hear that SHannity (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by weltec2 on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 09:49:12 PM EST
    has said something... I never know how much of it is based on his own fantasies. It may or may not be true but it does not surprise me to hear him make her out to be a vulture circling the Edwards' house. He loves this type of imagery. He has also implied that the Clintons murdered Vince Foster. He has no shame at all.

    Oy! (none / 0) (#74)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 07:44:26 PM EST
    The one thing I thought about Lewinski was "Gee, didn't her mom or someone have a talk with her?  Y'know to get her straight about the possibilities and pitfalls of that kind of relationship?".  

    At least Monica wasn't after marriage - she had at least that much sense.

    I'm thinking this is heading to court, one way or another.  If that's the only way to settle this, call in the lawyers!


    Go to court for what? (none / 0) (#144)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:54:06 AM EST
    What would Edwards, or Hunter, ask the court to do?  

    There's a child involved. (none / 0) (#150)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 05:30:05 AM EST
    Anytime there is a child and the kid's parents aren't living together, there are always custody and support issues.  These issues may be settled privately, or when that isn't possible, in the courts.

    If someone was claiming I was the parent of their child, I'd be very insistent that all parties go through DNA testing in order to prove the validity of that claim.  If it turns out I am not the parent, then I have no legal responsibility to support the child AND I've won a major battle in the media.  If I am the parent, I can go to court for full custody, knowing that if I win full custody, the other party will end up paying me support and have less control over me.

    It's never nice to use a kid as a means of influencing others, but it happens all the time.


    Interesting strategy, but (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by blcc on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:11:38 PM EST
    do you really see Elizabeth letting JE sue for full custody?  Do you really think she wants this drama in her home 24 x 7?

    The custodial parent (none / 0) (#173)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 03:54:19 PM EST
    holds most of the cards, legally and otherwise.  While the standard narrative is Mother of child sues for child support and wins. - that is not always the case.  If the father thinks the mother is not a fit parent, or would rather raise the child himself or simply would prefer to get her out of his life as much as possible, he can petition for full custody.  Then she gets stuck with support payments and limited visitation rights.  Heck, the father might not even care if she pays if he has enough money.  Once the tables are turned, she's largely out of the picture.  She can't drag him back into court to ask for more support, for example.

    It depends partially on circumstances and who has the better legal team aka money.


    None of this seems to be a problem for either (none / 0) (#178)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:14:25 PM EST
    Of them.  Hunter has custody and is getting $15,000 a month in support.  I cannot imagine why she would want to go to court.  John Edwards has shown no interest in suing for custody.  

    As long as it isn't a legally (none / 0) (#182)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 05:49:23 AM EST
    binding agreement, either party can pull out at any time.

    Yup, and she can go to the press (none / 0) (#183)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 11, 2008 at 03:34:29 PM EST
    At any time.  Neither of these people have any reason to push the issue by taking it to court.  

    Life IS for the living (none / 0) (#109)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 09:44:16 PM EST
    and when the sad day comes that EE passes away, JE can run to her and marry her, be a father like he was to all his other kids and live happily ever after.

    I would bet a dollar to a dog biscuit that NO one will be axing John Edwards to be running for office anytime soon.  Politically, he's dead in the water.


    Uh, axing? (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:20:20 AM EST
    Is that one of the changes Obama is going to bring to us?

    I'll be joining the English teachers revolt...


    Think (none / 0) (#110)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 09:44:51 PM EST
    Prince Charles and Camilla Bowles....

    She doesn't want testing because she knows (none / 0) (#125)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 11:28:12 PM EST
    that it will hurt Edwards.  She thinks she's protecting the man she loves.  I have little doubt that she has promised "her man" that she will never allow DNA testing.  gag.  

    Perhaps the "shakedown" is to break up (none / 0) (#112)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 09:48:20 PM EST
    his marriage and not to extort money. John certainly doesn't appear to be willing to leave Elizabeth, so maybe Rielle is trying to give Elizabeth good reason to tell him to get out.

    It would fit a certain (none / 0) (#151)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 05:36:45 AM EST
    delusion.  "We could be together if only..."

    There are women who are led on by married men who plan on staying that way and there are women who are led on by their own fantasies.  

    I think there should be A Talk for women around the age of 22, when the realities of romance and relationships are explained to them.  


    Would it matter? (none / 0) (#179)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:16:38 PM EST
    Women in love believe what they want to believe, at any age.  :(  

    Snitch (none / 0) (#116)
    by Miri on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 10:27:56 PM EST
    My guess is she leaked it in exchange for money. Maybe she did not do it directly but had a family member or a friend do it and shared the money.

    Beverly Hills hotel tip must have come from her or with her direct knowledge.

    She knew the Enquirer had been tipped with original story. So she must have known somebody in her inner circle was behind it. If she wanted to keep the Edwards visit a secret she would not have told others.

    It is obvious she wanted this to come out and she was getting paid.

    As to the baby originally I thought he might have been the father. But now that she is saying she doesn't want a DNA test I believe he is not the father.

    If he has a DNA test and he is not the father she has nothing left to milk for cash. This way she can leave it a question mark and still get paid by the tabloid shows.

    Enquirer claims otherwise (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:15:26 AM EST
    They say the story would have been printed much earlier if they had been able to get ANY cooperation from Hunter.  

    It doesn't sound like the baby is Young's since Hunter was living with the Young family, including his wife and kids when Hunter was pregnant.  Young's wife had to know who the father was and she had to know that it wasn't her husband.  They were protecting Edwards when they took Hunter into their home.  


    Rielle (none / 0) (#128)
    by Little Fish on Sat Aug 09, 2008 at 11:57:07 PM EST
    This is an interesting insight into Ms. Hunter.

    She's no Elizabeth, that's for sure.

    That is an interesting story. (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 12:21:54 AM EST
    I found it equally interesting that she didn't find Elizabeth to be too friendly.  

    Don't you think it is possible (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by weltec2 on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 01:12:19 AM EST
    that Elizabeth could tell that RH was trying to put the make on her husband? This could explain why she couldn't even make eye contact with her.

    Yes, but as a single woman (none / 0) (#147)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 01:30:48 AM EST
    "since forever," most wives who feel that way come at you with claws out.  They aren't coy about it.  

    Others who have "been there, done that" are more calm and uninterested.  

    Husbands who don't stray who pick up female friends -- well, the wives are frequently friendly because they don't feel threatened.  

    Any woman with any brains doesn't try to "put the make" on someone else's husband.  Those men are already taken and it's a total waste of energy and time.  


    I'm thinking of your 2nd category (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by weltec2 on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 07:51:35 AM EST
    of "been there done that." -- if I am understanding you correctly -- and each and every time it happens it tears at Elizabeth's heart. I have to disagree with you that she is more calm and disinterested. She knows it's going to happen; he has done if before. There is nothing she can do about it. And she is in pain. And I'm sorry but she is also not nearly as pretty. She is trapped. She is sick at heart. And she cannot look her rival in the face. She therefore seems -- big surprise -- unfriendly.

    And then you say "any woman with any brains..." But who says Rielle Hunter has any brains? John doesn't love her... my guess is that he could never talk to her. The videos that she made are reeeaaallly bad and show an amazing lack of imagination and attentiveness to the environment that she is working in. No... there is no relationship there beyond sex. That is one of the things that is so sad about this... the seeming incredible emptiness of the gesture.


    John never loved her? (none / 0) (#180)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Aug 10, 2008 at 11:19:47 PM EST
    He just used for sex?  Kinda like a prostitute?  Does that make it better?  Or worse?