Rielle Hunter Talks,

Rielle Hunter, paramour of John Edwards, is telling her side of the story to GQ.

The first thing I noticed is the photo spread of Hunter that accompanies the article. In two of the three photos, she's wearing no pants and her white shirt is unbuttoned suggestively. In a third, her sweatpants are loosened and untied with her now flatter belly exposed and her child on top of her. She looks like she's auditioning for a Hollywood movie. No matter what she has to say, it's going to be hard to take her seriously and impossible not to question her motives.

She looks good, kind of like Heather Locklear. What we learn: She loves her "Johnny." She insists she didn't meet him in the bar (but afterwards on a street corner)and she would never approach a man first. But what are the first words she says to him on the street corner? "You're so hot." The inconsistencies in her tale get worse as the interview progresses. [More...]

Examples: She would never make the first move. But after the street corner meet, she calls his room ten minutes later. He calls her back and invites her to his hotel room. She says it's not about sex and no way would she have sex with him, she was going there to sell him on her ability to help his campaign. What happens in the hotel room? She describes the physical attraction as if she were writing a Harlequin novel and then says "Fade to black."

She was in love with him four days later. They talked on the phone for four hours every night after that. (This is 12 weeks before Iowa and they talked on the phone for four hours every night?) How she describes their love:

[It's] bigger than you, bigger than us, bigger than everyone. We could not stop it. It was so big. And it's still big. It's astonishing.

On knowing he was married:

[I]nfidelity doesn't happen in healthy marriages. The break in the marriage happens before the infidelity. And that break happened, you know, two and a half decades before I got there. So the home was wrecked already. I was not the Home Wrecker.

On "Johnny's" lies. He might lie to the whole country and his wife but not to her.

To what does she attribute his poor judgment? "His fear of the wrath of Elizabeth."

As for him running for the Presidency, she thought he shouldn't. But thinks if he wanted to, he should have waited until April. (The Iowa caucuses were in January.) Why? Because that's what his astrological chart told her.

She says the Edwards' relationship had been "toxic" and "dysfunctional" for many years and she wasn't his first extra-marital affair. In the next paragraph, she says "Johnny really loves Elizabeth."

How ego-centric is she? She measures the time the Edwards' have been together by her own age. "[T]hey've been together since I was 13 years old."

She talks about how gracious Edwards' was when she told him she was pregnant (that same month he and Elizabeth renewed their marriage vows.) He never pressured her to have an abortion. Yet, in the next paragraph, she says he said "There's just nothing I can say to make you change your mind about this." and I said, "Nope." So he accepted it.

I just felt like Quinnie needed to come into the world and this wasn't our timing, this was divine timing and he needed to get on board.

The sexual affair ended in July, 2008 when the Enquirer broke the story. But their relationship kept evolving and she continued to fly around to see him. She denies it's because of his position.

If Johnny was working at a gas station, I would still be in love with him.

On her childbirth, which was an emergency C-section:

Johnny called me in recovery, and we spoke all night on the phone from the hospital. He went through the whole process with me.

On Andrew Young's book:

If his grand-jury testimony matches his book, I would suspect that they will be looking at him for many, many counts of perjury.

On the grand jury:

They spent a lot of time asking me detailed questions about Andrew Young, and about my relationship with Johnny. They asked a lot of questions about the sex tape.

[Who's the "they"? The prosecutor or the grand jurors? She doesn't say and the interviewer doesn't follow up. At a grand jury session, the prosecutor asks questions and when done, asks the jurors if they have any questions. The investigation is into campaign finance law violations, not his sex life.]

As for whether she thinks Edwards will be indicted. The answer is no. His only "crime" was in not firing Andrew Young ten years earlier.

Despite the Nirvanna-ish way she describes her and Johnny's relationship, apparently it wasn't always that way.

Johnny was screaming at me about the National Enquirer finding me and photographing me. He was very angry. And Johnny doesn't scream. He's not a screamer. But he was screaming at me that day, and Andrew suggested, right then and there, "Hey, tell him that I'll claim I'm the father."

Why did she go along with the plan to have Andrew Young say he was the father? She thought it was best for her daughter.

On the sex tape: She won't disclose the details, but says:

I think Andrew will grow and evolve, even if it's behind bars.

Her final comment:

He in fact did say to me the first night, "Falling in love with you could really f*ck up my plans for becoming President." And of course I said, "If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans."

As for the sex tape, that Andrew Young has denied showingto many people, apparently multiple sources have described it to the Daily Beast. Here's what allegedly is on it, according to Diane Dimond. Yes, Monica's blue dress pales by comparison. According to a "person with a medical background" who has seen it:

Hunter appears four or five months pregnant based on the swollen state of her belly and nipples. This would would place the tape's filming somewhere around September or October of 2007, smack in the middle of Edwards campaign for the presidency.

Young apparently talked to the Daily Beast:

Young told The Daily Beast that Edwards begged him, "let Elizabeth die with dignity… don't let Elizabeth die knowing the truth." The senator promised to correct the public record after Elizabeth's funeral.

Dimond ends her sex tape article with the same conclusion the Enquirer recently made:

Sources with knowledge of that grand jury investigation say the case is now complete and an indictment is imminent.

I'm still not buying it. It's not against the law to make a sex tape, and the grand jury is investigating financial crimes, not adultery. But, if he is indicted, all I can say is G*dspeed, John Edwards. I doubt Rielle and Quinnie will be visiting every weekend or there for you on the day you get out. And a few years in a federal prison camp might be less of a sentence than a lifetime with Rielle and her astrology predictions.

Our prior coverage of John and Rielle is assembled here.

< Sunday Night TV and Open Thread | Justice Stevens Discusses His Retirement Plan >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    She's exploiting (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:11:31 PM EST
    her daughter.  I really, really object to parents who use their kids as props this way.  She can flaunt herself all she wants, but don't bring the kid into it.

    Telling her side of the story to GQ? (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:16:17 PM EST
    Can any of this get any worse?  I won't listen to it.  I won't read it.  I won't be a part, not to even play judge or jury.  This is the last news or write up I will read about it.  I will turn the channel immediately when it comes on if and when it does.

    Why oh why did I read this one? (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:17:55 PM EST
    I hurt my eyes (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:20:52 PM EST
    Reille's in bed trying to look sexy with Dora the Explorer :)  

    Time to move on to Greenwald and (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:25:46 PM EST
    Digby.  Now TL has a photo posted.

    Ha, she has big ole pasty white thighs (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:28:28 PM EST
    My thighs have friends :)

    Yes but her thighs (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:30:18 PM EST
    apparently have a monkey helper. (sorry, Dora reference had to babysit a bit this weekend).

    please wait for an open thread (none / 0) (#84)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:21:12 PM EST
    this is about Edwards and Hunter.

    Yes, there's something (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:31:30 PM EST
    really creepy about the way she posed with the stuffed animals and, worse, with her daughter!  I looked at the pictures (and now pardon me while I go poke my eyeballs out with a shish kebab skewer), but I won't read the article.

    God, I think so too (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:33:05 PM EST
    I do think (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:36:12 PM EST
    we're both looking at this as mothers, MT, and how this impacts the child.  My kids are all grown up, but I'm still a mom.  Leave the child out of it!

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:38:30 PM EST
    And stop defiling your child's bed and stuffed animals in GQ.  It's gross!

    I don't think you have to be a (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by vml68 on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:41:49 PM EST
    mother (I am not one) to be creeped out by these pictures.

    Very true, vml68 (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:59:11 PM EST
    I was just thinking about this from the "mother bear" or "mother lioness" aspect.  Protect the children first!  And you're right- you don't have to actually be a mother to feel this.  ;-)

    That was the worst one (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:56:51 PM EST
    Even the one with the kid was at least explainable. 'Hey, I'm laying on the bed with my kid.' Those pictures are common with celebrity babies and parents these days. but alone with the stuffed animals? That's odd.  

    All in all I think the GQ photo stylist would never make it at Vanity Fair.


    Or maybe the photographer was (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:05:33 PM EST
    capturing something real and kind of weird about her.  That's a possibility, imo.

    You're right (none / 0) (#87)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:22:18 PM EST
    If I looked at the whole story maybe she is expressing some fear of losing her daughter and they are capturing an empty nest aspect. In that sense it is not even all that weird.

    That isn't what I pick up (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:33:46 PM EST
    Way too few operating boundaries is sort of what I pick up.  Perhaps a failure to make note that your daughter is not you and you are not your daughter?  Her daughter is now going to be receiving the attention that I think in truth Rielle has always wanted.  At this very young age though her mother can have an affect on how the child will be perceived when she begins to speak for herself.  If Rielle would get a real job, when her daughter does have to make it in this world......all the sleaziness of certain events could have been digested and left on the side of the road.  If Hunter ever did think she would be the next Mrs. Edwards, it is just my opinion that she firmly shut that door on herself.  This is going down in the history books as notorious and I don't think that is the sort of long term foreverish relationship perception that Edwards can deal with.

    I certainly could be wrong, but I'm thinking (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 03:12:01 PM EST
    he might not be able to find another Andrew Young right now to allow him to continue this relationship and not get caught on camera. So, where are the photos of him sneaking in and out of her house?

    If Hunter ever did think she would be the next Mrs. Edwards, it is just my opinion that she firmly shut that door on herself.

    I realize we've only been exposed to what the media has released on the relationship, but what we have seen seems more like an effort to keep Miss Hunter out of sight and quiet. Johnny doesn't appear to have difficulty living without her. Her assessment that the Edwards' had a toxic marriage isn't proven through the traumatic events their marriage has endured...an unhealthy marriage would not have stood a great chance of survival post the death of a child, yet, theirs went on to produce two more children.

    The strain of Elizabeth's health on top of a second run for the WH in just 4 years seems like it could create some intense fights...especially for people who have been in an unconditional relationship for 3 decades.

    But, the Johnny/Hunter combo reads like a textbook affair..."my wife is horrible, but I can't leave her because she will torture me beyond your wildest dreams." I find nothing in print yet that says Johnny was ever planning more for Hunter than to use her for his own pleasurable distraction from what was happening in his life.


    You know what else doesn't (none / 0) (#146)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 05:56:58 PM EST
    match up with the Edwards' having a toxic marriage for the number of years that she claims?  Their survival of the death of their oldest son in a car accident, followed by the joint decision to have other children.  When families experience that kind of instant tragedy, the ability to survive the experience and have a marriage that you are staying in indicates that something very bonded and tangible and actually very healthy is present in the relationship.  After the instant death tragedy in my own family, my mom's parents had divorced within a year.  The marriage was always strained....after the death of their oldest child (who was out of the house and married herself when it happened) and several of her children, they snapped in two.  There wasn't enough health for them to stay together and grieve those losses, the marriage was too draining.

    Or she may just be kind of weird (none / 0) (#95)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:36:35 PM EST
    in the "inappropriate" and "not knowing social boundaries" sense.  And the photographer may have captured that.

    Photo on the bed (none / 0) (#113)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 03:04:05 PM EST
    with her kid is certainly not uncommon, ruffian, but with her sweatpants unlaced?  That, to me, is more than a bit icky, especially juxtaposed with the photo of her in the white shirt (and apparently nothing else) posing with the kid's stuffed animals- Dora the Explorer, Kermit, Barney et al.  Icky, icky, icky.  Be sexy-looking and suggestive all you want, Rielle, but not with your child or her toys.

    True, the whole thing is weird (none / 0) (#152)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 07:54:13 PM EST
    not gonna argue against that.  I still think it is mostly just badly executed. It is neither sexy nor wholesome - what were they going for? No art at all.  I don't find it objectionable except as a matter of good taste.

    OMG. You clicked the link! (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:23:26 PM EST
    For awhile this morning "Advertise Liberally" sidebar had a porn description of the GQ piece.  No, I didn't click on it. Did wonder how it made it past censoring software.

    Yup, "J" said she looked a bit like (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:26:59 PM EST
    Heather Locklear.  And though that isn't particularly important, I had not noticed the resemblance.  Thought I missed something.  I think what I missed was "J" being very generous :)

    A cross between Heather Locklear (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:48:28 PM EST
    and Jane Krakowski

    I don't see it, either (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:55:09 PM EST
    I think Hunter is lacking greatly in femininity and softness (which Locklear is abundant in). The poses also make her thighs look really thick and out of shape. Not at all flattering, IMHO :)

    I did not click on the link (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:40:25 PM EST
    Because I find the whole thing disgusting.  She's a lowlife who is using her child to advance her personal agenda, whatever it may be.  Put me in the ''don't know, don't care" category.  She's scum and so is her boyfriend.  Once again, I feel duped, having thought John Edwards was a decent man.  He's not.  I so very much wish the press wouldn't cover up for jerks like him.  We could have elected him President!  Then his scummy gf would be visiting the White House, or, worse, living there!  <shudders>  

    I can't control the headlines (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:29:38 PM EST
    that show on the Advertising Liberally ad. Unfortunately.

    We know, Jeralyn (none / 0) (#57)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:01:32 PM EST
    We know.  Stuff happens.

    oops on *P0rn*, right? (none / 0) (#24)
    by observed on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:32:29 PM EST
    She's the basis of a character in American Psycho (none / 0) (#150)
    by Salo on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 07:12:31 PM EST
    Not making that up.

    Haven't read the article, but listened (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:14:15 PM EST
    to the author this morning.

    Posted this in the Open Thread, below:

    I didn't get the impression she was looking to do herself any favors, based on what I heard this morning from the author of the GQ article; it came across more as she's the only one of the participants in this drama who has not been heard from, and she wanted to be heard, and I really can't say as I blame her for that, at least.

    One can make the argument that Hunter should have had respect for the Edwards marriage and not placed herself in a position where she would be seen as a homewrecker, but John was the one who took a vow of fidelity, so it seems like he should have had more respect for his own marriage, if not his children.

    As for Hunter making Elizabeth out to be a power-hungry liar, well...if Eliz. knew as much as Hunter says she did, and if John had been unfaithful in the past, it's hard not to wonder what - or who - was the real motivation behind continuing on with a presidential campaign in spite of that knowledge.  Maybe it was as simple as her believing that John would be unable to continue to cheat on her if she could just get him elected to the WH - who knows?

    Whatever else she is or may have been, I know that Elizabeth Edwards is no saint - because no one is; we are all human and all have our not-so-pretty side.  Rielle Hunter is not just a stereotypical, one-dimensional, evil other woman - whatever her flaws and failings are, she also has to have some good qualities.  And even though none of us has been privy to the details of the Edwards marriage, one doesn't need to be to know what a mess all of this is, or that the children - including Frances Quinn - will be saddled with the stigma for years.

    No shining moments for anyone involved, that's for sure.

    Everyone involved in this will tell a story based on their own perceptions and feelings, so it doesn't surprise me that there are variations from person to person.  Hunter's "side" of the story is just another piece of a much bigger whole that we not only will probaby ever know all of, but really don't have any particular right to know.  Everyone in this is defending him- or herself, so whatever "the truth" is, it's not likely to come from just one person.

    He not only cheated on his wife (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:34:55 PM EST
    he cheated on the entire Democratic Party. What if the jerk had won the primary? We'd have been sunk.

    I wish people like him would just fade away. They don't deserve our attention anymore. Gentlemen's Quarterly? Good reason in itself to not bother reading the article.


    Well .. people buy the mag (none / 0) (#56)
    by nyrias on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:59:18 PM EST
    for pics, not the article.

    What about the notion that this is his private life and none of our business? Isn't this view popular with democrats during the clinton years?

    A majority of men have affairs anyway.


    and I quote "Percentage of men who admit to committing infidelity in any relationship they've had: 57%"

    So for those men in office who seem to be clean, well, they are not found out yet. At least 57% of them.


    I've always kind of wondered (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:05:32 PM EST
    about the infidelity statistics, which seem to show that men are far, far more unfaithful than women.  Is that really true, or are they more willing to own up to it in polls?  Who are all these married men having affairs with, anyway, a few really, really busy single women?  Or are married women just more discreet about it?

    Women are catching up (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 03:02:26 PM EST
    if that's the right term.  I'll have to go find the studies, but younger women tend to have higher infidelity rates - it's related to financial independence, among other things.  

    From what I've read, there's no actual biological benefit for men to be less monogamous than women (see this excerpt from Olivia Judson's book on evolutionary biology).  The basis for most of the "scientific" view of that is a bad fruit fly experiment (yes, you heard that right). In fact, biologically speaking, women may benefit more from infidelity (they are more likely, for example, to get pregnant from a new lover than their spouse).  

    Of course, culturally, women are punished in the extreme for infidelity. Bad here, worse elsewhere (stoning, for example).  

    Put another way, if women were naturally faithful would society need so many different ways to punish the unfaithful?  

    Humans are about mid-way on the monogamy scale.  Some are monogamous, some are not.

    (Sorry there aren't more links, but I didn't have time.)


    interesting comment (none / 0) (#131)
    by ZtoA on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 03:30:27 PM EST
    When I visited Pompeii there was a temple where women could go if they were not getting pregnant in their marriage. There they 'worshiped' and 'prayed' to fertility gods and when a child was conceived it was said to be a blessing from the gods.

    i am not an expert on (none / 0) (#71)
    by nyrias on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:11:42 PM EST

    But I read somewhere that work place romance is the most common. The Internet has an effect too. It is much easier to connect with someone now than in 15 years ago.

    And my guess it that women are less likely to admit it.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#94)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:36:08 PM EST
    I think that in past times, men had way more opportunities (although, for women there were always the plumber, the electrician, the handyman, the milk delivery guy, the local butcher or grocer....so who really knows?).  But with more women in the workplace, and with the advent of the Internet, I suspect (although I do not know) that there is more parity in infidelity than there used to be.  Certainly, recent genetic studies of animals once thought to be "monogamous" have shown that monogamy is definitely rare.  

    Anne, please don't expend any more (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:35:37 PM EST
    energy on this subject.  Not worthy of your efforts.

    If she so vehemently objects (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:37:01 PM EST
    to being painted as a slutty homewrecker, this is a pretty peculiar way to go about dispelling that image.

    I'm cracking up (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:39:39 PM EST
    She'd rather be depicted as a slutty child's bed wrecker :)

    Maybe it's just me, but the (none / 0) (#96)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:37:12 PM EST
    text of the article doesn't come across as "slutty homewrecker" at all - it doesn't even come across as "ditzy dumb blond" - but the pictures?  Those I could have done without, and she may well be regretting them too, as she finds that most people will be judging her on them, and not on a single word she uttered in the interview.

    And, again, I don't know that there is anything remotely vehement about her in that article - she doesn't like being judged as a alutty homewrecker, but understands why people could think that.

    Oh, well - as oculus has said, I've probably already expended more effort on this than it was worth, but I think the cherry-picked quotes and the interrpretation of what she said don't really do justice to the entirety of the interview.

    But the pictures are bad.  Maybe nothing unusual for GQ, but still, not adding much to the persona she wants people to take from the interview.


    Haven't read the interview (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 06:23:56 PM EST
    and don't intend to.  Perhaps she doesn't actually "vehemently object to being painted as a slutty homewrecker."  Perhaps she only mildly objects?  I don't know.  Haven't read it and won't.

    The pix, however, pretty much say it all.  You don't pose for a photog lounging around in an unmade bed bottomless, seems to me, if you're just innocently trying to tell your side of the story in something like this.

    Seems to me that the screaming subtext of the pix is, "It's no wonder John Edwards committed adultery with me, I'm so freakin' hot, I'm burnin' up the sheets!"


    She's the basis of a character in American Psycho (none / 0) (#151)
    by Salo on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 07:15:17 PM EST
    One of Evelyn's ditzy chums.

    Isn't North Carolina where that case of (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:37:30 PM EST
    Alienation of Affection won the wife one heck of a fine settlement in her divorce from a very wealthy man?

    This article is showing the country what Johnny became when his ego soared. Her attempts to be sultry in the posing can only be for Elizabeth. Miss Hunter's intent behind it is mean-spirited, and unenlightened.

    I applaud Elizabeth's ability to take the high road against this. Hopefully, she is ignoring everything relative to this woman, and working hard to fight her cancer battle. I can only imagine the antics Miss Hunter is capable of pulling (and probably has) after this doozie.

    One quibble with that (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:41:07 PM EST
    I think the sultry poses are more likely to sell issues of GQ. I think it is a prerequisite for a woman appearing in that particular magazine.

    I get this funny feeling though (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:45:16 PM EST
    that Reille chose GQ as much as they chose her :)

    I get the feeling they were willing (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:48:40 PM EST
    to pay her the most money out of whatever pool of bidders she was likely entertaining.

    The magazine for the man (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:52:17 PM EST
    looking for the $400 haircut.  Okay, I must quit now.  I could go all day.

    she wasn't paid for the interview (none / 0) (#61)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:05:23 PM EST
    The GQ interview says that right up front. That's why I think she did it for future opportunities -- she says even with her child support, she has to start working.

    Paid nothing for the images either? (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:09:51 PM EST
    Well, either way paid or not paid, she's looking for a payoff somewhere down the line.  If nobody goes to jail, maybe they'll do a reality show!  Sigh.  Or she'll get a talk show... or whatever.  She's an ambitious woman.  That much is clear.

    Think Octomom. (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:12:37 PM EST
    That is exactly who all of this (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:18:05 PM EST
    is beginning to remind me of.

    Unless and until we stop feeding (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:21:23 PM EST
    the beast(s) as a society, the cult of the notorious will contiune to grow.

    She could always go back to videography. (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by scribe on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:14:27 PM EST
    Look where it got her so far.

    She was not paid for the interview and pics? (none / 0) (#115)
    by bridget on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 03:05:35 PM EST
    I was just going to ask how much she could expect to earn for this kind of an interview with all the juicy details and sex kitten pics. I thought that was the whole idea. More details, more $$$.

    So she was not paid? What could she possibly hope re future opportunities? Sorry, Hollywood is not calling. She does not look like Heather Locklear. Not even close.

    But Has she written her tell-all book yet? Now that could be a real humdinger and this interview gives a taste. And the book will sell well. Who knows, it may be ready to go to print any moment Now.  


    It's part of a pattern (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:49:16 PM EST
    with her, actually. She's extremely jealous of Elizabeth or she wouldn't have to diminish her character every chance she gets. Remember, Johnny picked Elizabeth after the story broke and made Hunter out to be a liar and a one night stand.

    Johnny (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:52:06 PM EST
    seems to have been betting on Elizabeth dying soon enough for the whole thing not to have blown up in a way that he had to make a choice. I'm not sure I would consider that being 'picked' if I were Elizabeth. And indeed, she does not.

    Read it again, ruffian, (none / 0) (#54)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:58:20 PM EST
    Hunter not Elizabeth. I said nothing about what Elizabeth thought.

    You're right (none / 0) (#105)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:45:59 PM EST
    Then I guess I would agree with Rielle that Elizabeth was not really 'picked'. She just managed to stay alive long enough to be publicly wronged.

    Whatever, it's a mess.


    Do you think JE actually would (none / 0) (#67)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:07:45 PM EST
    marry this woman under either scenario? Never got found out before Eliz died, or now?

    I'm thinking she was going to be chasing him until she had no choice but to give up no matter what.


    I can't help it, just one more (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:02:49 PM EST
    Swiper no swiping!

    ?? Explain (none / 0) (#65)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:05:51 PM EST
    She didn't learn a thing from all that Dora? (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:13:58 PM EST
    Dora always says "Swiper no swiping!" to Swiper the fox :)

    Ahhhh..... (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:39:36 PM EST
    Dora wasn't around when my kids were of the age she appeals to :)

    Speaking of "crazies"! (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:13:31 PM EST
    Elizabeth Edwards wrote a book last summer (none / 0) (#126)
    by bridget on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 03:21:33 PM EST
    and she did not sound like taking the high road ...

    I read only a few bits online but EE just like many woman whose husband betrayed them, blames the other woman. Acc. to EE it was all Hunter's fault. Mr. Edwards just could help it. Oh that Poor fellow.

    EE was in complete denial for years. I always thought it was the odd marriage.


    Someone on the high road doesn't (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 03:55:19 PM EST
    refer to the child produced by the affair as "it," either; don't know what it says about Elizabeth that she found it easier to hate a child than the husband who cheated on her, but it's nothing good.

    It's amazing - or maybe it isn't, really - the lengths people will go to to preserve an image, especially if one is coming to the end of one's life - I mean, when one lives and dies in the public eye, who wouldn't want to control the images as much as possible?  If not for one's self, than for one's children?

    I don't think Hunter is wrong when she says the Edwards marriage was broken before she ever came along, but that doesn't necessarily mean there is, or should be, an assumption that the marriage was irreparably broken, and therefore, there could be no further damage by participating in the affair - clearly there was a lot more damage that could be done.

    That being said, I've decided that most of those raking Hunter over the coals here have only read Jeralyn's take, with select quotes, and looked at the photos, and didn't read the entire interview.


    Don't you think that a 3+ decade long (none / 0) (#133)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 03:39:33 PM EST
    marriage is going to have the wronged party defending the person they gave that much of their life to? What is it about the photo poses that makes it appear Hunter is using her intellect, and unconditional acceptance of Johnny to sell her side?

    Not sure how many books Elizabeth sold, or how many of those sold ever got read, but the affair was a part of Elizabeth's story and she was writing an autobiography.

    I'm not fond of Elizabeth, but I think Hunter betrayed her on a woman to woman level. If these two were meant to be together, they should have waited until Johnny was single (through divorce or natural causes).

    Once JE told the truth about being the father, EE has been on the high road...probably trying to limit the stress in her life, while Hunter is clearly trying to raise it to the highest level she can.  


    "Betrayal on a woman to woman level"? (none / 0) (#136)
    by bridget on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 04:04:45 PM EST
    Who cares. If the two women are not married to each other.

    Elisabeth Edwards lived in complete denial. Her Husband betrayed her and she lived "in dreams." I always found it pathetic when a woman always blamed the Other Woman when her husbands did her wrong. It is so pathetic. Those kind of women need to grow up and step out of their cognitive dissonace.

    btw. For his political career EE did need his wife and she certainly knew it. And She took advantage of it. Was he afraid of her? Who knows. The marriage was def. not healthy. He did not look happy to me.

    I wouldn't be at all surprised if JE is now vastly relieved that he is finally separated from EE. But Just wait a while, he will be back in the village and his fans will vote for him again ... mark my words. Ok, maybe only on one of those dk  polls ;-)

    ... after all they did it in a big way after he run a miserably lame campaign in 2004 ... Edwards still won every candidate poll on dk starting 2006. Ah well, anyone but Hillary, right?


    Kinda hard (none / 0) (#157)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 12:33:38 AM EST
    to fight a lethal disease when you're exposed to the stress of having your name dragged through the mud.  I haven't read all the stuff -- and won't -- but based on the clips & comments here, it seems that hurt to Elizabeth while she's fighting cancer is an issue as to which Rielle has little concern; she comes across as rather narcissistic.

    Well, she sounds like quite the expert (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:39:52 PM EST
    on marriage. How long was she herself ever married, exactly, to get this ironclad knowledge of when and how homes get 'wrecked'?

    I really wish everyone involved would go away and STFU. I have as much prurient interest as anyone, and I don't need my baser interests fed.

    this is a gem (none / 0) (#44)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:47:48 PM EST
    It's beyond difficult. To allow a man to be a man. The biggest mistake that I find is that women attempt to make men women. You know, we want them to be like we are. We want them to get it immediately and do things the way that we want them to do them. And men are men. And I love him for being a man. But oh, my God, yes, it's been infuriating so many times.

    She appears to be auditioning for the Marriage Ref.


    She was married to (none / 0) (#89)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:23:28 PM EST
    the son of Alex Hunter, who was Boulder District Attorney when JonBenet Ramsey was killed. (Dad was DA, not the son.)They got divorced.

    I had no idea she was related (none / 0) (#108)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:47:30 PM EST
    by marriage to that Hunter family. Oy.

    Attractiveness and magical thinking (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by esmense on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:58:09 PM EST
    are a bad combination -- because, until the looks are gone, there will always be men willing, for awhile, to take advantage of such ungrounded, damaged souls.

    This woman's thought patterns and history remind me of a woman I know who spent most of her adult life chasing after, and engaging in affairs with, noted men (mostly in the arts and show business). Unlike Reille, she never got a child as a meal ticket -- now pushing 60, her life of fantasy has left her entirely unprepared to care for herself, and without anyone willing to care for her.

    I feel so sorry for that child who is condemned to being raised by, and used by, a sad, fantasy-addicted narcissist with absolutely no moral grounding.

    Hunter (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Emma on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:22:28 PM EST
    might as well make hay while the sun shines.  Two years from now, nobody will pay her a dime for her story.

    Unless (none / 0) (#90)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:24:21 PM EST
    John Edwards gets indicted. Then she'll live on in infamy.

    Regardless, (none / 0) (#99)
    by Emma on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:40:41 PM EST
    the payday's going to dry up PDQ.

    With all the crimes of the (none / 0) (#158)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 12:36:20 AM EST
    first decade of this century that have gone unpunished, JE's seem to pale by comparison.

    What the h. was Edwards thinking... (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by desertswine on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:44:19 PM EST
    nothing, I guess. Gets me angry.

    Certainly demonstrates... (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Raskolnikov on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 11:17:49 PM EST
    ...that politicians are human, and fools sometimes, like the rest of us.

    Not creepy (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Emma on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:45:04 PM EST
    I didn't find the photos with the kid creepy or exploitive. Certainly not a patch on Miley and Billy Ray Cyrus.  Ew.

    But, nothing good happens after you take your pants off in front of a photographer.  I would've thought everybody knew that by now.  Pantsless does not translate to classy in any known universe.

    #1 line of the day: (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by scribe on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 03:02:43 PM EST
    But, nothing good happens after you take your pants off in front of a photographer.

    Worked for Sharon Stone back in (none / 0) (#121)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 03:14:33 PM EST
    the day.

    As I recall it, (none / 0) (#124)
    by scribe on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 03:18:46 PM EST
    Stone said she was tricked into it.

    Not so with Hunter.


    They are both saying the same thing. (none / 0) (#132)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 03:33:02 PM EST
    Did you know Cloris Leachman was Stone's mother-in-law?  I didn't until I just read Wiki.

    Frau Bluecher? (none / 0) (#135)
    by scribe on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 04:03:20 PM EST
    Really? [horses whinny madly]

    it's not like she's (none / 0) (#116)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 03:06:08 PM EST
    unfamiliar with cameras and crews . . . .

    In defense of Heather (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by DFLer on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 03:21:08 PM EST
     Locklear certainly has a better sense of humor and is probably much more fun to be around.

    Kid's toys? (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Emma on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 04:30:46 PM EST
    I honestly don't get the angst about the kid's toys.  It's not like she was h*mping them or giving them tongue or anything.  She was just on the bed next to them.  I mean, it's not sexy, it's sort of dumb, but it's not disguting P*nthouse pr0n forum, either.

    And I never tie my sweatpants.  Guess I'm a sl*t, too!

    Do you (none / 0) (#140)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 04:56:59 PM EST
    have affairs with married men and then pose with your sweatpants seductively untied in a men's magazine while you want people to think you are an innocent in this mess?

    Leaving your sweatpants untied is one things - this was done completely for the sexual image it presents.

    And here's the funniest line of the article:

    [I]nfidelity doesn't happen in healthy marriages. The break in the marriage happens before the infidelity. And that break happened, you know, two and a half decades before I got there. So the home was wrecked already. I was not the Home Wrecker.

    That may be true, but what she leaves unsaid is "So, I saw my chance to score a millionaire politician, and I took that chance."  Just because she thought the marriage was already wrecked still doesn't give her the right to step in.


    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Emma on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 05:12:04 PM EST
    I don't have anything to say about Hunter's morals or J. Edwards' morals or E. Edwards' morals.  I just don't care.  I just think calling her sweatpants "seductively untied" is a bit of stretch.  

    First of all, I doubt she did it.  I'm sure it was the photographer and everybody else who set up the shot.  So, whatever they were going for, I'm not automatically going to attribute it to evil intent on Hunter's part.  I think she showed some poor judgment, sure, but assuming she was the one setting up the sex kitten look all on her own is a bit much.

    Second of all, it's just a string.  Really.  Come on.  It's hardly a playboy centerfold.

    Third of all, the Edwards are responsible for their own marriage.  Hunter is not.  So all this "right to step in" stuff is just silly from anybody who says it.  If J. Edwards opened the door to extra-marital relationships, that's on him, not Hunter.  I don't see the point of the opprobrium being heaped on Hunter because J. Edwards chose to act like his marriage didn't mean anything.  It wasn't Hunter's responsibility to give any kind of crap about J. Edwards' marriage.  That's on him.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 05:27:52 PM EST
    The Edwards are responsible for their own marriage.  However, Hunter is responsible for her own actions too. And now, she wants us to feel sorry for her?  Sorry - I can't work up any sympathy except for the baby.

    And yes, the photographer set the shots up - but to claim that she was naive as to what the photographs would look like in GQ magazine is a bit of a stretch - she works in putting media presentations together - presentations that send whatever message her clients want.  She knew exactly what this interview and photo shoot was about.

    I guess my morals are different than some - I've been accused of being old fashioned and a fuddy-duddy (and that's ok).  Call me silly if I think as a single woman, it IS incumbent on me not to get involved with a man whom I know is married (not to mention to get pregnant at 43 - it's not like she was a kid either), no matter what he says the state of his marriage.


    I didn't call (none / 0) (#145)
    by Emma on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 05:32:46 PM EST
    you anything.  I just think it's silly to call her sweatpants "seductively untied" as if makes her the wh*re of Babylon.  Silly.

    no one mentioned those words but you (none / 0) (#156)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 11:24:19 PM EST
    I compared it to trying out for a movie, not what you suggested.

    Hunter assumes (none / 0) (#159)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 12:38:49 AM EST
    incorrectly, I believe, that men who are basically happy in their marriages never cheat; I think she makes a false assumption.

    She must be totally hot in bed, otherwise (none / 0) (#1)
    by observed on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:04:17 PM EST
    I can't see why Edwards would have an affair with such a dingbat.

    Not to get (none / 0) (#6)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:18:36 PM EST
    too out there on this but well, isn't that kind of the rep about crazies.

    oy (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:43:27 PM EST
    there is so much crazy here...I really haven't ever seen anything like it.

    I try not to be a judgmental person, but I do not know what John Edwards was thinking.  It's so completely over the top that I can't sympathize.  Who knows.


    Is this a dude conversation or something? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:22:55 PM EST
    I think it applies to men too. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:28:19 PM EST
    Egotistical, self-involved people like having people fawn over them - and people who tend to fawn to the degree that would satisfy an egotist are often kinda goofy, not so bright and/or nutty.

    Are crazy men good in bed? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:32:09 PM EST
    I always thought they probably had too much crazy going on to be focused.  I guess crazy isn't much of a stimulant for me.

    Oh - I wasn't making that connection. (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:40:36 PM EST
    I guess in a way I was saying that whether she was good in bed or not might have been a separate issue for someone with an ego that probably needed as much attention as his did.  In other words, her purpose was not necessarily entirely sexual in his life.  Sounds like he and Mrs. Edwards were not quite as supportive a couple as we once thought they were.  Not for nothing, the dingbat aspect of Hunter would have been a real contrast to a woman like Elizabeth Edwards.

    I think the most polite way of putting it (none / 0) (#120)
    by scribe on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 03:13:24 PM EST
    would be to say that there's some level of corresponding behaviors going on, i.e., needy, emotionally damaged women who either never had or set aside logic and common sense (and/or are inclined to Rielle's apparent level of magical thinking) often also have fewer-than-average or no boundaries when it comes to seeking male attention, and especially tend to drop whatever boundaries they may have when expressing themselves during intimacy.

    I'm putting it delicately b/c of the pron filters which I don't want to set off.

    As to The Crazy among men, I think that tends to express itself in aggression and violence more than the lack of s*xual boundaries that tends to be the modality of expression among women.  Whether that aggression and violence are "hot", I suppose that's a matter where de gustibus non est disputandum applies.


    Maybe commenter is referring to Edwards? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:28:43 PM EST
    Seems kind of crazy to me.

    Ummm (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:25:09 PM EST
    Hotness factor is not only something discussed and appreciated by dudes...  

    Since when does hotness (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:29:48 PM EST
    equal crazy equal good in the sack?  But hey, whatever....free world, free country and all that

    You got it sideways: (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by scribe on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 03:28:43 PM EST
    the hotness is a product of The Crazy, because The Crazy expresses itself through No Boundaries and Blatant Availability.  And no boundaries and blatant availability is deemed hot.

    In other words, it's almost like The Crazy is a state of perpetual on-the-rebound-and-looking-to-make-up-time.  You might want to date The Crazy, but not hang around for the long term.  And make sure to use a phone number you can get rid of quickly.


    See, you know what I'm talking (none / 0) (#147)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 06:10:12 PM EST
    about...I've heard the dude conversations about the sex with the crazy ones. I know this one guy who put it this way....."Some girls are good for fun but not fun for good"  After another martini they've moved onto the great makeup sex with ANGRY REDHEADS conversation.

    I think Hunter's behavior (none / 0) (#160)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 12:45:11 AM EST
    is much more complicated than that. For one, I  think Hunter knows how to charm a man and make him feel irresistible.  The no boundaries came later.  I agree there may be a pattern, in that she preys on men, but does it cleverly, and then must tell the world about it; Or, could it be that she's hitting back because JE might have told her he's no longer interested in her?

    Ever Hear of Nymphomania? (none / 0) (#142)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 05:06:56 PM EST
    Or Satyriasis?

    Many men or women who are in the manic phase of their disorders are quite wild in bed ergo "hot". But, I guess it depends what hot means to you.  I still do not see how this would be a conversation only "dudes" would have.


    Well, in the line up of Bill (none / 0) (#148)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 06:15:20 PM EST
    Maher, Adam Carolla, and Dr. Drew....I'm really only interested in taking Dr. Drew home to my mother.  The other two in the sex and human sexuality department are crazy.  If I get them down to their skivvs I'm not sure I want you to know I ever went there :) As to whether or not they would actually be more fun, fun for who?  Fun for me?  I have my doubts

    She is totally hot even after child birth ... (none / 0) (#11)
    by nyrias on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:25:40 PM EST
    I bet she is hot before.

    I am sure more of the male American public are more ENVIOUS of Edward than anything else. Edward trumps Clinton in terms of hotness of their mistresses.

    With mistresses like this, who needs the white house?


    Well, Clinton girls had big hair (none / 0) (#14)
    by observed on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:27:21 PM EST
    and "expert" lips.

    And she was 43 (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:28:49 PM EST
    when she got pregnant. Also, she's now a size 2 according to the article. She definitely looks great, but it's as if that's the point of the photos, to sell her sex appeal, not to salvage her and John Edwards' reputation.

    the real question (none / 0) (#25)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:32:43 PM EST
    is how great would you have to look for someone to knowingly destroy their entire public career, this isn't a Clinton thing where the guy was doing something he had a well established reputation for doing, this was a guy basically deciding to obliterate all he had worked the last decade or so to achieve.

    How do you know? (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:35:33 PM EST
    She says that Edwards has been doing this for a lot of years with women other than her and she's probably not wrong.  I would be surprised if he had not and this was his first attempt.  There's a lot of skill that this sort of deception requires and guts, too.  Having an affair under the microscope of a Presidential campaign is no small undertaking.

    Also to sell GQ Magazine. (none / 0) (#26)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:32:50 PM EST

    So, it's the camera angle that has (none / 0) (#41)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:43:01 PM EST
    her not looking size 2, I guess. I'm wondering if GQ wanted her to go provocative, or if they merely accommodated her.

    she's very upset about the photos (none / 0) (#58)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:02:04 PM EST
    She told Barbara Walters (who relayed it on the View today according to news articles) she cried for two hours when she saw them and just trusted the photographer.

    Are you buying that? (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:04:28 PM EST
    What??! (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by vml68 on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:07:41 PM EST
    Just what kind of pictures was she expecting if all she is wearing is a man's shirt and laying in bed?

    She trusted the photographer to do what....make her look like she was going to a board meeting/ church outing in that outfit?


    Trusted the photographer how? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:08:16 PM EST
    Did the photographer show up as she was making the kids bed and getting dressed....and shots were unknowingly being taken before they sat down dressed on the sofa for the interview?  Or did she mean to be practically naked except for that fresh shirt a male lawyer would keep at the office just in case he got marinara on himself or had a naked girl running about?

    :) Love it... (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:13:01 PM EST
    Nothing is ever this woman's fault. Everyone is out to get her.

    Maybe they airbrushed her pants off her and gave her the appearance of big thighs, and photoshopped her onto those rumpled beds.

    Or, maybe she cried because they had promised to airbrush away the flaws and make her look like Angelina Jolie. :)


    Don't most people who think (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by vml68 on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:22:03 PM EST
    Everyone is out to get her.

    their love is so big, bigger than them, the universe, etc...{gag}, also believe that everyone is out to get them. The only problem I see with this, is that these people are usually teenagers!


    Yes, definitely....then, if you read (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:30:15 PM EST
    Jeralyn's comment about Hunter's father, she'll start resembling Mary Kay Letourneau, who also never quite grew past teenage mentality.

    Nobody was out to get us (none / 0) (#107)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:47:05 PM EST
    We were meant for each other.  Nobody else can stand either one of us 24/7 except for the other one :)

    New can of worms...WHEN was she talking to (none / 0) (#80)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:16:02 PM EST
    Barbara Walters? Is GQ just the beginning of a media blitz she's doing?

    she is following Levi's career path. (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 03:05:14 PM EST
    In this country, you don't need a ... (none / 0) (#50)
    by nyrias on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 01:53:03 PM EST
    reputation to advance.

    Paris Hilton is the best example.

    She is doing what she can to increase her publicity. May be a book deal is on the horizon.


    Paris had nothing to advance to. (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Radix on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:15:43 PM EST
    Both she and her sister were born into the top 5% income bracket.

    She got into a few movies ... (none / 0) (#109)
    by nyrias on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 03:00:59 PM EST
    and had her own show.

    She would never have those things if the sex tape wasn't released.


    You're probably correct about that. (none / 0) (#127)
    by Radix on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 03:23:41 PM EST
    Not sure if I consider that advancement though. Looks more like something for the idle rich to do while killing sometime.

    She got publicity (none / 0) (#161)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 12:48:44 AM EST
    need to be in the limelight, $ or no

    Gosh, haven't heard about Paris in (none / 0) (#81)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:16:57 PM EST
    so long, I came close to forgetting she existed. Her sister, too.

    John Edwards wouldn't have an affair with (none / 0) (#119)
    by bridget on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 03:12:19 PM EST
    such a dingbat?

    Oh yes he would. In a New York minute.

    And he did.

    Tell him he is hot ... and he is got the signal LOL.


    Waiting for Godot . . . (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:14:02 PM EST

    Interesting that she only disccusses (none / 0) (#83)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:18:42 PM EST
    her father to mention his dying of cancer and infidelity. He was a rather infamous attorney who taught others, including Tommy (Sandman) Burns, how to electrocute horses as part of an insurance fraud scheme. The whole story is in this 1992 Sports Illustrated article. I remember researching the whole thing on Lexis when the Enquirer story broke. Can't remember if I wrote about it. One of the horses Burns killed was Rielle's and she found the dead horse. Reportedly, she accused her father of having the horse killed and he didn't deny it. Story at ESPN here. I think there was a lot going on in her family besides the infidelity she mentions.

    I think you did write about it (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:29:32 PM EST
    as I had forgotten about it until now and I think this is the only place I would have seen it. Turns my stomach. I do have sympathy for her in regards to her father and what happened to her horse . . .

    I thought I did too (none / 0) (#97)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:37:13 PM EST
    I'm just not finding it. It was a fascinating story and I remember spending hours and hours investigating it, down to where I was reading reports from show horse and horse breeding forums where some of the writers grew up with her and her sisters. Her name then was Lisa Druck (it became Hunter when she married the Boulder DA's son, and then she changed Lisa to Rielle.)

    Which tells me there's a whole lot of (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by scribe on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 03:01:26 PM EST
    not-so-nice going on in the background of her head and she's exactly the kind of troubled nightmare an efficient campaign would have cut away from Edwards the minute she showed up.  Campaigns (and, more generally, the appearance or actuality of power) draw Hunter's sort of damaged people like [supply your favorite metphor here].

    That either the campaign didn't get her away from him or Edwards overruled the advice of his advisors, choosing to obey Li'l John, tells me we dodged a bullet with him.  While his campaign promises were in the right place and he was my first choice (and I voted for him in my state's primary), this exemplifies he lacked the judgment to get past the first, lowest hurdle.  If the campaign failed him, he was inept in selecting advisers.  If he overruled them, he was worse.

    I don't hold a brief for Obama, but at least he hasn't shown any indication of being the kind of weak-minded, indisciplined [something]  Edwards is proving to have been.


    OK, I just ended up on a horse forum! (none / 0) (#106)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:46:08 PM EST
    I'll have to save it for later reading though as I need to get busy :)

    You and Heckofajob Brownie (none / 0) (#122)
    by scribe on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 03:15:46 PM EST
    Any connection there, seeing as how Brownie's job prior to trashing what was left of FEMA was with show horses?

    Maybe someday if one of the (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:45:51 PM EST
    Edwards children takes a wrong turn in life, people can all point to this and say, "well, the apple never falls far from the tree, you know..."

    If Rielle had talked more about her father's past, I've no doubt she would now be accused of blaming him for her current situation; face it - she's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.


    Have you read Wallace Stegner's (none / 0) (#117)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 03:11:13 PM EST
    fiction about the pony?

    "The Colt," by Wallace Stegner. (none / 0) (#128)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 03:26:08 PM EST
    Stems from an experience in his childhood.  Poignant.

    Interesting (none / 0) (#162)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 12:51:23 AM EST
    I wonder what else her father did

    I have no desire to defend John Edwards or Hunter (none / 0) (#100)
    by kmblue on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:43:42 PM EST
    I gave Edwards money I didn't have (fell for the two Americas stuff) and met both John and Elizabeth at a campaign event.

    And I realize that Jeralyn's post is about the Hunter article and pictures, and posters are reacting to that.  I haven't read the article and don't intend to, and the pictures hurt my eyes.

    BUT--Some of the comments on here directed toward Hunter seem pretty vicious and dare I say it, sexist.  They make me uncomfortable because they seem to be coming from women (I could be wrong).
    Ladies, there's no need to attack this person with such vigor.  In my opinion, in some cases, it may be saying more about the attacker than the attackee.  

    John Edwards is scum (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Zorba on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 03:16:52 PM EST
    No doubt about it.  (And i gave him some money early on, too.)  But he hasn't posed suggestively in photographs with his young child and that child's toys, at least not for public consumption.  I can only speak for myself, but what I'm objecting to is the exploitation of her child.  That, way much more than her affair with a married man (for which Edwards bears equal responsibility), is what I'm objecting to.

    What you said, Zorba, AND (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 03:29:07 PM EST
    the affair is a woman on woman attack, kmblue.

    Hunter is berating Elizabeth, yet Elizabeth really is the victim in this. Why would you think women should defend Hunter?

    If the Edwards' marriage truly was a sham, and Hunter was as enlightened as she wants people to believe she is, the scenario would have John leaving Elizabeth and THEN starting a relationship with Hunter.


    And because Elizabeth Edwards (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 09:32:55 PM EST
    knows about parenting, mothering, and a mother's boundaries, she will not join this woman in some infantile showdown of the best loved by Johnny thigh . Elizabeth will be there for her children in this first!  And the best place when dealing with women like the Hunter woman is quietly yet alert to whatever damage she may send your children's way.  This woman sold highly suggestive photos of herself for the small price of getting us to notice her God Damn It to a mag with a male readership that looks forward to the monthly sexually suggestive spread....something that some women feel is akin to exploiting women though I am not such a woman.  As Ms. Suggestive does this she makes claims that "the other woman's" marriage was a sham...always was while Elizabeth was wife and mother of a family that lost their first son in a terrible car accident and then the couple decided to have more children.  The Hunter woman is spewing to America that for three children...their family has always been a sham.  The Hunter woman has zero boundaries when it comes to family, children, or motherhood for that matter.  Elizabeth Edwards on the other hand has no such problem.  The Hunter woman would also say that these beliefs are nothing more than my beliefs and she would be right about that in her book and I'm more than proud and happy to own them and have them!

    Oh Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 09:44:22 PM EST
    And the chances of me believing her that she wasn't leaking everything now is just about zip.  Things have mostly died down, we almost forgot about it all.  Now she must shuck her drawers trying to draw me back in.  If John Edwards is indeed as drawn to spending his life with manipulating controlling women who make his life hell, she should be engaged soon.

    Disagree (none / 0) (#137)
    by kmblue on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 04:04:57 PM EST
    I don't excuse Hunter at all.  But we have only Hunter's word (?) that the marriage was a sham, and Edwards is the one who "strayed".  I agree that Hunter is being vile towards Elizabeth.
    Does that give us an excuse to be equally vile to Hunter?

    We always blame the women.  "Game Changer" (I confess to reading the excerpt from NEW YORK mag) portrayed Elizabeth E. as a horrifying shrew.
    The day I believe those 2 male clowns about ANYTHING, I'll believe Stupak has my best interests at heart.


    People have paid to watch trainwrecks (none / 0) (#101)
    by scribe on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 02:44:14 PM EST
    for many, many years.

    Here's one you can see (LOUD AUDIO) without forking over however much GW is charging this month.  And this one is aptly titled.

    More than a bit of a stretch, imo.

    Pun intended? Pregnant 43-year old. (none / 0) (#141)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 04:58:38 PM EST