« The War on Drugs is Out of Control
‘We Didn’t Change China, But Protests Were Worth It’: From the Gazeta Wyborcza »



John Edwards (Finally) Admits To Affair

August 8th, 2008
By SHAUN MULLEN, TMV Columnist

Print Print

John_Elizabeth_Edwards.jpg

John Edwards repeatedly lied during his presidential campaign and since then about an extramarital affair Rielle Hunter, the former senator admitted to ABC News today.

In an interview for broadcast tonight on “Nightline,” Edwards admitted that he did have an affair with the 44-year woman, but said that he did not love her.

Edwards also denied he was the father of Hunter’s baby girl, Frances Quinn, although the he said he has not taken a paternity test. A former campaign aide, Andrew Young, has said he was the father of the child.

According to friends of Hunter, Edwards met her at a New York City bar in 2006. His political action committee later paid her $114,000 to produce campaign website documentaries despite her lack of experience.

Edwards denied paying any money to Hunter to keep her from going public but said it was possible some of his friends or supporters may have made payments without telling him.

His wife, Elizabeth, was diagnosed with breast cancer shortly after the affair began. The cancer has now spread and she is terminally ill.



This entry was posted on Friday, August 8th, 2008 at 12:25 pm and is filed under Newsweek Blogitics, Scandals, John Edwards, Breaking News, 2008 Elections. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 20 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    As always, there are two stories here:

    (1) Edwards story - the lesser one: He is probably still lying. His claim that the affair ended early so he could not possibly be the father simply does not jibe with (a) his presence at the hotel, and running from photogs (why even visit the woman covertly); (b) rumors (yes, tabloid trash) that someone is paying a lot of money to support the mother and "father" without any visible means of support. He clearly is partially conceding from fear of what the National Enquirer has on him. . . and after senior Dems called on him to come clean.

    (2) MSM Embargo - the "PRAVDA EFFECT": MSM coverage of this story will now be like Pravada reporting on the sudden death of Soviet leaders after long illnesses, when the day before they were the picture of health, giving speeches etc.

    I presume it is now OK to cover the story. How will the NYT, the LA Times etc. explain to the nation their absolute refusal to even talk about this story, let alone investigate it?

    Will their coverage of Edwards initiate a new standard of MSM rectitude? Will they refuse to discuss or even investigatge rumors of gay GOP figures . . . or GOPers who cheat on their wives?

    We all know the answer to that one . . . .
    • ^
    • v
    Sounds like another Presidential candidate who abandoned his wife in need and cheated on her with a younger woman.
    • ^
    • v
    It’s sad that, at this time in her life, Elizabeth learns what a slime ball she is married to.

    I honestly feel sorry for her.
    • ^
    • v
    Well, I think we can take him off the short list for VP.
    • ^
    • v
    Elrod said: "Sounds like another Presidential candidate who abandoned his wife in need and cheated on her with a younger woman."

    I agree. If there is any good to this, it means Edwards will not be at the convention, and this will not be impacting the presidential contest.

    He is probably off the list for the Cabinet as well. Who knows, though? Lots of progressives backed him.

    The focus of this story should be on the MSM . . . not on Edwards and his family IMHO.
    • ^
    • v
    It is interesting to see how the media bias thing plays out. Since the Edwards thing turned out to be true, the media will be blamed for a liberal bias in not pursuing it. At the same time, further down on TMV, we have some discussion of the Suskind allegations that the CIA or the White House forged documents to get us to war, which the MSM is by and large also ignoring, and so, if they haven't happened yet, we will see charges that this reveals the MSM's conservative bias. And around we go.... What we need instead is discussion about how to assess evidence and leads, as well as public importance, then we can use those criteria to see if the media is being consistent.

    Is the Enquirer a more reliable source than Ron Suskind? Should it not be about the source, but about the evidence the source provides?
    • ^
    • v
    Actually, it sounds like what a measurable number of regular people do when a spouse becomes ill.

    In no way am I defending Edwards... what he did was an evil, cowardly response to his wife's illness (which likely had a profound effect on their marriage). Sadly, what Edwards did is more common than most people realize.
    • ^
    • v
    I must admit that I am very disappointed. I didn't *want* the story to be true, but as the days ticked by, the silence from Edwards was deafening. Edwards was my top choice in 2004, and 2nd-top choice in 2008 (behind Biden). I understand politicians having affairs -- they do it all the time (both Democrats and Republicans alike). However, what disappoints me the most is that he went into the presidential campaign with this already under his belt (so to speak). Did he delude himself to think that something like this wouldn't be revealed?

    Perhaps the most annoying fallout out of all of this is that I'm going to have to start talking the National Enquirer a little more seriously (choke). This is the second time in a year they've broken a major story. The next time they have a major bombshell I'm not going to be able to dismiss it so lightly in my mind.
    • ^
    • v
    Pacatrue said: "Is the Enquirer a more reliable source than Ron Suskind? Should it not be about the source, but about the evidence the source provides?"

    The agenda of the source may be important.
    The Enquirer, after all, has not only targeted Edwards, but also broke the story of Limbaugh's prescription drug "problem."

    Thus, the Enquirer in unbiased, in that it will target Democrats and Republicans. (Not that all its stories are true, of course . . . but it has no political bias or agenda).

    Suskind may be perceived to have an anti-Bush agenda.

    Equally, Bush is also yesterday's news really. What is the interest in pursuing all of these stories about him? He will be gone from the political arena for good in a few months.

    Edwards was still a potential player in the Democratic party, a potential VP, and a potential cabinet official.
    • ^
    • v
    "Edwards made a point of telling Woodruff that his wife's cancer was in remission when he began the affair with Hunter."
    ...as if that somehow makes it a little better. Sheesh, what a douchebag.
    My heart goes out to Elizabeth & the children.
    • ^
    • v