John Edwards Cheats On Wife
Wow. Edwards was right. There are two Americas: douche bags who cheat on their cancer-ridden wives and those who don’t.
In an interview on ABC News “Nightline,” Edwards acknowledged the affair with 42-year-old Rielle Hunter, which began after she was hired to make documentary videos for his campaign, ABC said.
“I am responsible for it. I alone am responsible for it,” Edwards said on ABC News “Nightline.”
Edwards told the network that his rise from “a small town boy in North Carolina” who “came from nothing” to a successful lawyer, U.S. senator and national public figure “fed a self-focus, an egotism, a narcissism that leads you to believe that you can do whatever you want.”
Edwards, in the ABC interview, acknowledged meeting with Hunter at the Beverly Hills hotel at the request of a friend of hers.
“I was there from a very simple reason, because I was trying to keep this mistake that I had made from becoming public,” Edwards said.
What is the over/under for # of posts until someone on the left brings up cheating and a Republican?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 09, 2008 at 1243 hrs
There wouldn’t be any comments from any differing viewpoints if the leaders and pundits political parties weren’t so quick to condem someone when in others in their parties have done or are doing the same thing!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 09, 2008 at 1313 hrs
Newt?
Posted by Deibert on August 09, 2008 at 1314 hrs
...if the leaders and pundits OF THE political parties…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 09, 2008 at 1315 hrs
Edwards told the network that his rise from “a small town boy in North Carolina” who “came from nothing” to a successful lawyer, U.S. senator and national public figure “fed a self-focus, an egotism, a narcissism that leads you to believe that you can do whatever you want.”
This is the scary part, and I think exemplary of so many of our politicians in Local, State, and Federal government. Disgusting for any party.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 09, 2008 at 1318 hrs
I would also like to extend Jasons comments into the wide realm of sports also.
Kobe Bryant springs to mind.
Things like this are what happens on any level when people surround themselves with “yes people”.
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on August 09, 2008 at 1810 hrs
I’m really disappointed. I was an Edwards supporter early on, before Clinton and Obama sucked all the oxygen out of the race.
At least he manned up and took full responsibility.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 09, 2008 at 1912 hrs
I completely agree with you Mike, however, elected leaders with this attitude surely impact my life… and yours… and everyone’s a LOT more than a sports hero or famous actor. You know if they take that attitude about where they can put their penis, they’re taking that attitude with what to do with our money and faith.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 09, 2008 at 1952 hrs
Jason:
I completely agree.
“Leaders” who make poor decisions like this definitely have a larger impact on millions and millions of lives, than the sports figures do.
However my larger point was that people eventually lose all ability to decide right from wrong when EVERY little decision is made for them, and every wrong decision is rationalized by the people around you doing “damage control”
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on August 09, 2008 at 2044 hrs
At least he manned up and took full responsibility.
I wouldn’t quite say that he “manned up”, when it took a tabloid rag to get him to come out with the story AFTER he denied it for years.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2008 at 0837 hrs
At least he manned up and took full responsibility?
Not until he got caught. What if he had won the nomination? The arrogance and selfishness (oh, for George Will’s vocabulary right now!) of both John and Elizabeth Edwards is breathtaking. This disclosure at this time would have thrown the Democratic party into disarray and handed the presidency to the Republicans. If you are a Republican, this would be good. But if you are a Democrat, he did nothing less than steal your trust and risk the future of this country.
On a personal level, he told his wife back when it happened rather than letting her find out from the media. And he spared his wife and us the spectacle of yet another smart, strong, independent woman standing (physically) next to her philandering husband while he admits to the world how he betrayed her. But those crumbs of decency didn’t give him the right to allow his supporters to put their trust in him, knowing what was at stake.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2008 at 0856 hrs
This story lacks two aspects that usually make GOP sex scandals more interesting: the participants were of age and were of the opposite sex.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2008 at 0912 hrs
Interesting how the mainstream media is almost making a hero of John Edwards for admitting he cheated on his wife. And why isn’t the media calling out the entire Democratic party as a reflection of Edwards behavior? They do when a Republican official does something bad or illegal. We hear how the entire Republican Party is to blame. Is that a double-standard or what?
The press will be quick to let this story disappear. After all, Edwards is a Democrat. On the other hand, if this would have been Romney or Huckabee having an affair, we’d have been reading stories till November….Posted by Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer on August 10, 2008 at 1012 hrs
Amy-
Conspiracy theory much?I don’t recall reading about the party being to blame when that senator did something stupid in the restroom.
Then there was the Florida guy who had a thing for his interns/paiges (do I remember that correctly?). The only reason part of that fell to the party, was that the guy appeared to have a record of such behavior that may have been hushed by the party. Why let those in the party responsible for hushing up that guy’s behavior get away with it? We wouldn’t do that for those in the Catholic church who hushed up the priest sex abuse scandal…
Why does everything have to be partisan?
Why blame the entire party because Edwards doinked a filmaker? That just seems stupid.
Posted by Mike on August 10, 2008 at 1302 hrs
Edwards provides more proof that everyone whould be especially suspicious of someone who wants to rape corporations and claim they are doing it for you.
Spitzer and Edwards try to portray themselves as Robin Hood when they are really King John.
“Douche Bag”? Yes, the most perfect word for these DB’s. I find it refreshing that these two shark lawyers get a taste of real justice.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2008 at 1429 hrs
Amy, since the media has been running this story ... well, constantly, I’m not exactly sure how that is “dropping it.”
This behavior is disgusting no matter who does it. I’m just glad that this man is neither our VP nor the presumptive Democratic nominee for POTUS.
Posted by hsgbdmama on August 10, 2008 at 1512 hrs
And why isn’t the media calling out the entire Democratic party as a reflection of Edwards behavior? They do when a Republican official does something bad or illegal.
Not only is that completely and obviously untrue, it really shows a totally one-sided and distorted view of politics and the media.
Posted by scott on August 10, 2008 at 1723 hrs
since the media has been running this story ... well, constantly, I’m not exactly sure how that is “dropping it.”
The issue Amy refers to might be that the MSM pretty much ignored this for 9 months. I think this shows the power of blogging. In the future, that will be the bigger part of the story.
But a lot of ire has now been aimed at the mainstream media in America, which did not report on the story even as it became a national talking point on the internet and late-night television.
That blanket of silence was finally lifted after Edwards, a former senator who has run twice for the Democratic presidential nomination, gave a television interview to ABC News in which he detailed his romantic relationship with former campaign worker Rielle Hunter, which he said occurred in 2006.
The news was like a dam breaking in the mainstream media. Suddenly Edwards’ affair became a front-page story. For many in the new media world of blogging, however, the coverage is too little, too late.
‘There will be ramifications from this incident on the blogging community and also on the mainstream media,’ wrote Steve Clemons, a blogger at the Huffington Post, an online newspaper which has led reporting of the affair.
The fact remains that the Edwards story was ignored for almost nine months by the vast majority of American newspapers, radio and TV news organisations despite detailed accounts of the scandal in the National Enquirer and widespread coverage on the internet.
The scandal was also covered by many foreign newspapers, leading to the bizarre situation in which many Americans were reading detailed accounts of the allegations long before their mainstream media news organisations were reporting on it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/10/usa.pressandpublishing?gusrc=rss&feed;=media
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2008 at 1755 hrs
It discourages me that American politics is so much about character issues—real and manufactured—and almost not at all about good government policy and leadership skills. For this I blame television and the political right. They can’t win on issues, it seems to me sometimes, so they go for the character bullshit to distract everyone. Problem is, it’s pretty effective. I feel like the left is trying to sell broccoli to a population that is being fed free Twinkies.
Posted by scott on August 10, 2008 at 1807 hrs
Scott,
That’s bullshit. Are you seriously arguing that character doesn’t matter? Sure, policy positions matter. But nobody knows what will face the next president. That’s why character matters. The fact that you are willing to overlook one’s character - or even disparage the evaluation of it - is naive bordering on idiocy.
Posted by Owen on August 10, 2008 at 1837 hrs
I feel like the left is trying to sell broccoli to a population that is being fed free Twinkies.
Yet when Owen posts on Obama policy issues the crickets can be heard. Seems like even the lefties like their Twinkies.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2008 at 1844 hrs
This is a story I don’t want to hear any more about. I think it didn’t get a lot of attention initially because it was the stupid National Enquirer that brought it out. I didn’t believe it at first, and what reputable news source wants to start a story with, “As first reported by the National Enquirer…”?
I don’t think we need to hear any more about it. He’s not politically relevant and hasn’t been for awhile (though he was when this affair appears to have happened), but more, his wife already knew, he has young children at home who will likely lose their mother before they are grown, and Edwards’ repeated denials of fathering the child—if he did—will do no good for the child.
Yes, he was wrong and may now and forever be known as Scummy McScummerpants, but his irrelevance makes this story not newsworthy any longer and can only serve to hurt others. I guess I just feel for the kids involved.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 10, 2008 at 2114 hrs
Are you seriously arguing that character doesn’t matter?
No. But it doesn’t matter in the way that everyone’s saying it does. I mean this sincerely: I personally believe that a candidate’s extramarital affair have only the most peripheral relevance for his fitness for office. I mean, c’mon. How many of our past presidents do you think ever—ever—had extramarital affairs? My guess is that more than half of them did. Many of these are presidents who, in retrospect, were very effective at their jobs.
If people believe that these kind of character issues are more relevant than I do, fine. I guess I can see some pretty understandable arguments for that position. But what I can’t see is making them more important than the very real policy differences which are going to have the most direct and profound impacts on our lives and the lives of our children. And, yes, I believe a disturbingly large portion of the electorate do exactly this. And the media, such as it is, fuels it and enables it.
Posted by scott on August 11, 2008 at 0821 hrs
This is also shaping up to be a reason for Hillary not getting the nomination - if Edwards had bailed out sooner, she would have had a stronger showing. That is where his arrogant “character” becomes an issue - any fool would know that one must tread very cautiously when running up to an election. I hate to admit this, but I think I am not different from a lot of people in kind of wishing that we had a McCain/Clinton race - there would have been a lot more discussion of issues & policies & less of the personal side issues.
I know this isn’t coming from a neutral position, but Wolfson does make some sense: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5553013&page;=1
The lie “certainly had an impact on the election,” Wolfson said.
Wolfson said the Clinton campaign was aware of the issue, but did not try to fan the flames.
“Any of the campaigns that would have tried to push that would have been burned by it,” said Wolfson.
But he says he is mystified about the failure of the national media to pursue the story as it has allegations of other candidates’ affairs.
“I can’t say I understand the rules of the media and I’m not sure they do either,” he said.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2008 at 0958 hrs
I think I am not different from a lot of people in kind of wishing that we had a McCain/Clinton race - there would have been a lot more discussion of issues & policies & less of the personal side issues.
I couldn’t disagree more. I maintain that senator Clinton is a capable leader and perfectly fit for office, but she’s also a more divisive figure than I would like to see in the white house at this point in time. I can’t imagine for a moment that a general election with her in it would have a lot more “discussion of issues” and less of the sensational, scandal-mongering “personal side issues.” Quite the opposite is true.
Posted by scott on August 11, 2008 at 1014 hrs
This is also shaping up to be a reason for Hillary not getting the nomination - if Edwards had bailed out sooner, she would have had a stronger showing.
That is utter rubbish. After Edwards dropped out Obama saw a bump in the polls, not Clinton. More of Edwards supporters migrated to the Obama camp than to the Clinton’s.
Check out the link to see how Wolfson’s claim has no basis in reality.http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/why-howard-wolfson-is-out-of-job.html
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2008 at 1322 hrs
The available numbers tend to argue against Wolfson’s point of view, says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
Among Edwards voters in Iowa, entrance polling indicated that Obama was the second choice of 43 percent, and Clinton of 24 percent, with 11 percent naming other candidates.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2008 at 1350 hrs
Edwards told the network that his rise from “a small town boy in North Carolina” who “came from nothing” to a successful lawyer, U.S. senator and national public figure “fed a self-focus, an egotism, a narcissism that leads you to believe that you can do whatever you want.”
Fame and power corrupts like no other. How can it not…
And I ask myself why in the world people want to feed that beast.
Why are we going to put more control in the hands of government where those behind the wheel who will inherently be corrupted by the power will certainly misuse it.
Problem is, it’s pretty effective. I feel like the left is trying to sell broccoli to a population that is being fed free Twinkies.
Thats a great analogy. It sure is easy to sway people with “free twinkies” isn’t it Scott.
Lets apply it to todays political spectrum on a larger level.
Who’s literally offering all the “free twinkies”???
Who’s proposing ‘free healthcare’ and ‘energy tax credits’ and a hand-delivered solution to every problem with no sacrifice required?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2008 at 1352 hrs
The free twinkies are analogous to the scandal-ridden pap that come from Republican talking points and are mainlined directly into the public consciousness by a lazy corporate media always eager for more eyeballs. It does not refer to government programs. The broccoli that is hard to sell to the eaters of free twinkies represents a more policy-oriented discussion concerning good government and a rational evaluation of issues.
Why are we going to put more control in the hands of government where those behind the wheel who will inherently be corrupted by the power will certainly misuse it.
So what’s your feeling on FISA and Bush’s NSA wiretapping?
Posted by scott on August 11, 2008 at 1400 hrs
...but she’s also a more divisive figure than I would like to see in the white house at this point in time
So, Obama is “the uniter, not the divider?” Sounds like that 3rd Bush term we have been warned about.
I admit I am somewhat clueless when it comes to political dynamics, but here are a few of my “predictions” (culled from articles that have appeared online) that will get air time and continue to make the discourse less about McCain/Obama differences:
Clinton side makes another attempt for superdelegates that were behind Edwards: (http://www.nysun.com/editorials/hillarys-surprise/83609/)
Obama camp has to defend against Detroit Mayor Kilpatrick situation:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/michigan_the_obamawrightkilpat.html
While the link that 3rdWay cites does a pretty good job of statistically” debunking the Wolfson’s claims, there is also this:This is not to say that Edwards couldn’t possibly have impacted the race in ways that were favorable to Barack Obama. He was probably useful to Obama, for example, in attacking Clinton early on, increasing her negatives without Obama having to pay the price. His endorsement of Obama in May was undoubtedly a big assist to Obama’s endgame.
Sounds a little bit of the debate about how Al Gore would have won in 2000 if not for Ralph Nader.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2008 at 1425 hrs
So, Obama is “the uniter, not the divider?” Sounds like that 3rd Bush term we have been warned about.
I don’t think it’s in any way controversial to say that senator Clinton is a more divisive figure in American politics than senator Obama. I’m not really sure what you’re objecting to—if anything.
The policy differences between the two were minimal. All things being equal—and they pretty much were—I’ll take the candidate who isn’t outright hated by 20% of the population any day of the week.
Posted by scott on August 11, 2008 at 1430 hrs
Why are we going to put more control in the hands of government where those behind the wheel who will inherently be corrupted by the power will certainly misuse it.
So what’s your feeling on FISA and Bush’s NSA wiretapping?
Its as slippery of a slope as slippery gets.
We’ve seen historically how policy after policy that starts off with the best of intentions was just the first hole in the dike so-to-speak that led to misuse and unintended consequences.
The free twinkies are analogous to the scandal-ridden pap that come from Republican talking points and are mainlined directly into the public consciousness by a lazy corporate media always eager for more eyeballs. It does not refer to government programs. The broccoli that is hard to sell to the eaters of free twinkies represents a more policy-oriented discussion concerning good government and a rational evaluation of issues
Oh I understand the point you are trying to make. People eat up a scandal easier than they eat up a policy discussion.
That same mentality applies to my example. Surely you can see the parallel.
as an example:
We have high healthcare costs.
Its difficult to convince the populace that its because:
- we have expensive new heroic life-saving measures
- expesive new designer drugs for EVERYTHING,
- everyone wants the best of everything when it comes to healthcare
-everyone turns on the TV and sees a commercial that lists a symptom they have and they run to the doctor for a pill (instead of looking at lifestyle issues)
-expensive surgeries and hip replacements and joint replacements and all the myriad of things that have driven up
-obesity and healthcare costs related to weight related conditions
-high cost of litigation related to health malpracticetrying to make the voting public aware of all those complex issues and the market forces at play and understand the causes and why we are where we are requires a great deal of time and education.
INSTEAD
along comes the democrats offering “free healthcare for everyone”
and people just gobble it up because it is the intellectually simple solution.
So as you say… Its hard to sell people brocoli when politicians are out giving away free twinkies.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 11, 2008 at 1554 hrs
Yes, I see the point you’re trying to make—your analogy doesn’t work for me simply because you’re totally wrong on the issue.
Posted by scott on August 11, 2008 at 1608 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134037
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 12:32 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 105
Total anonymous users: 2
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 06:32 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).