National Enquirer alleges John Edwards affair; blogosphere readies salt shaker
Barack Obama's VP shortlist might have gotten shorter: The National Enquirer yesterday published a story claiming it had caught John Edwards meeting with an alleged mistress and illegitimate child. Then again, the Enquirer hasn't been able to produce quotes, photos or even eyewitness accounts. And the mainstream media seems to be ignoring it, for the most part.
TalkLeft, among others, hopes it isn't true. And thus far, the claims don't seem to have hurt Edwards politically — although the Corner has something worth noting:
...after first seeming to take himself out of the running, he put himself back in the race two weeks ago, telling NPR, "I'm prepared to seriously consider anything, anything [Obama] asks me to do for our country."
But yesterday — the day the Enquirer story went live — the Rocky Mountain News reported, "former Sen. John Edwards told a Denver audience Tuesday that now he's plunged into a new kind of campaign, 'to end poverty as we know it in a generation.'"
Wonkette, in its own way, expresses exhaustion at the thought of another Edwards story:
The important question is not “Why is John Edwards cheating on his wife who had cancer?” We know that answer: He’s a Democratic politician. They have affairs with ladies. The important question is “Why do we have to hear about this again now?”
The answer is “Because a tabloid caught him with the mistress and the baby at a hotel!” A love child? Jesus! Bill Clinton must feel a million years old tonight. Joe Klein, too.
Pajamas Media plays savvier-than-thou:
Oh, one last thing, for those of you who say it’s The National Enquirer, how do we know it’s true? I suggest you Google the “National Enquirer and OJ Simpson.” They broke most of the important stories on that case. In general, these days they’re vastly more reliable than The New York Times.
But Outside the Beltway interrupts, "Indeed, the Enquirer breaks legitimate scandals all the time. But they run with all manner of nonsense too — they just don’t care so long as they sell papers." It goes on:
Edwards has been widely touted for another run as vice president, although I can’t see why he’d want to go through that again, especially with his wife in ill health. Certainly, those facts would make the scandal worse, if true. Frankly, I hope it isn’t.
Ditto.
So John Edwards like girls, good for him, I'd vote for him into the white house then have a priest, and we all know the track recored with these priest, I was 5y/o in a Catholic Church in Long Island, N.Y. in the early 30' up for adaption I was sexual abused by a priest and that scar lasted all my life.
John Edwards reallized his mistake and he will be a better man for it, in Edwards I trust. Tony Sacco
Posted by: tony sacco | August 26, 2008 at 07:43 AM
While you may be disappointed in John Edwards behavior as am I, I would like to remind you that there are many women out there who will always go after any man who has some celebrity, add money to the mix and you have even more. It doesn't have to be a politician. It may be a doctor, airline pilot or just a company executive. These women set their trap for these type of men and know how to proceed to get them into an affair. Obviously this woman learned how to get to him because she sure couldn't get anywhere with her looks alone. She's just plain unattractive and like a lot of men he fell for her, hook, line and sinker and now he's sinking!!! Sorry it had to happen to Mrs. Edwards and her children but we've seen it a million times in all walks of life and it will continue until men learn to think with their brains and not other body parts. Those egos need stroking and someone is always out there to do it for them.
Posted by: Miriam | August 19, 2008 at 05:03 PM
Why cann't men keep it in their pants? Its NOT just the Dems
I'm sick of it!
Posted by: carla darby | August 19, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Mr. Edwards,
I could be like others and bad mouth you and especially the ugliest woman in the world that is claiming to have had your child. Anyone can see she is not ugly on the outside but she is ugly and manipulative on the inside. She is even uglier because she knew you were married. Mr. Edwards, you need to love your wife right now, beginning now and make her feel, MAKE HER KNOW, ASSURE HER that she was the most beautiful woman in the world, she had your children, she loved you when you were at your ugliest, she supported you, gave to you. You need to erase her pain, the pain by having an affair is worse than probably her physical pain from her illness. The pain in the heart hurts so much when someone you love and trusted betrays you. You need to erase it before she dies. Please work your hardest, do not let her die thinking she was not sexy enough for you, or her illness made her ugly, or she could not arouse you or love you enough. Make her know this other woman was a nothing. Be a decent human being and erase this pain for Mrs. Edwards. She is a beautiful woman who is so greatly admired and loved.
Posted by: Maria | August 15, 2008 at 03:38 PM
My hat goes off to the National Enquirer for this story. Contrary to what the public believes, exposure of such ill conducted is needed. No matter what political party these officials belong to, infidelity should be inexcusable. How can you take a Presidential Oath or any vow to serve the public and you can't adhere to a simple vow to your spouse? Are they not the same: Oath of Office....Marital Vow to your spouse.? Do thay not require a commitment of the people taking an oath (or vow)?
Posted by: Sharhonda | August 15, 2008 at 09:57 AM
I knew Edwards was a sleaze ball from the get-go! His two Americas' banter and his arrogant, self-aggrandizing and cocky, good ol' southern boy charmer tactics have parlayed him right where he belongs. He always displayed such an air of elitism, while claiming that he was the candidate for the "common" man. Re: $400 hair cuts, for example.
Now people see him for the superficial and lying politician he proved to be!
"I saw it coming."
Posted by: Viktor | August 13, 2008 at 05:59 PM
All of you make me sick.
Posted by: uopo | August 13, 2008 at 03:46 PM
Mr. Bojangles,
FYI as an adoptive parent I should know that BOTH signatures are required on many documents along with a homestudy and notarized papers.
So that being noted, Cindy couldn't have just "surprised" John with a child and adopted them without his consent.
Just thought you'd like to know that part can't be true.
LJ
Posted by: Laura J. | August 13, 2008 at 02:31 PM
I am just so disappointed with the scandal on John Edwards. I always looked at him as such a caring and honest person and this sure changes my whole outlook on him. When he did his interview on Nightline, you sure could tell he was lying through his teeth. I can't believe that he visited her in a hotel and he did not know anything about the money or who it was coming from and isn't it convenient that the guy that claims to be the father happens to be on Edwards campaign staff and the fella giving out the money is also on his campaign staff. Such loyalty. if he is so innocent of not being the father, you would think that he would insist and she would want to have a paternity test but this again is another ploy of covering up for him.
men and their zippers - disgusting !!!!!!!
Posted by: Dorry Dahl | August 12, 2008 at 07:34 PM
Like her sister, I would like to see John take a DNA test also. That would answer all the questions now wouldn't it. Only a woman who had prearranged to refuse the test, thinking she had a future with the man, would refuse. Sounds a little too thought out to me.
Posted by: Rosalie Ingrim | August 12, 2008 at 03:09 PM
Typical moonbats spewing stuff about John McCain from 20 years ago. Guess what? This story is NOT about McCain, it's about John Edwards caught in a lie. You mentioned Newt? Newt wasn't running for president. Edwards is in love with this girl. Has anybody seen the videos this woman did for him? He is giddy with excitement, and so flirtatious, it's almost embarrassing. Of course he's the baby's father. He said he'd take a test, knowing the Rielle would say no way. They are in love. He didn't count on his wife going into remission. He figured he'd bury her, then move on.
Posted by: Trixie | August 12, 2008 at 09:11 AM
I think that the Democratic Dream Ticket would be Bill Clinton and John Edwards. Both are charismatic, both are liars, both have no respect for their wives.
Posted by: James M. Robertson | August 12, 2008 at 06:47 AM
Hey! Edwards came clean with his wife - He asked that a paternity test be done - She/the mother of the child in question - has said that she does not want a paternity test done. Seems as though she/the mother of this baby in question knows that "John Edwards" is not the father but just the same = if she can make some kind of connection - then money is in her pocket. So very sad!!!
Posted by: MARGIE | August 12, 2008 at 12:48 AM
Hehe, some of you little moralizers amuse me. As a certain controversial religious organization might ask, "what are *your* crimes?" A jelly donut says you've conveniently forgotten your own transgressions (and each of you do have them) in your rush to knock down an easy target. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, eh? Do I like what Edwards was up to? Nope, not a bit. Personally I find it repellent. But guess what? Unfortunate things happen in this world and have been happening since mankind emerged from the cave. That's a little something they call 'human nature," and Americans alone have the strange fantasy that it somehow doesn't apply to them. After you guys are done with the outrage, you might want to take Mike's advice and make sure your priorities are in order. Edwards cheating on his terminally ill wife is a nasty thing - but it's odd how few of us seem to realize that a senseless war based on *proven* lies is just a little bit nastier. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Funny that in this day an age, it takes a foreigner to inject any common sense into American culture.
Posted by: Naturyl | August 11, 2008 at 10:58 AM
I once thought that a man should be allowed to make a mistake but if you let them make one, they keep doing it. I also thought that somethings should be kept inside the home, but a politician is asking people to be in control of the land our homes are on. If he is going to govern as a God, maybe he should be holy like one.
John Edwards is now a part of CHNO's Nut News. I would like to see him step away from politics and let an honest man step in.
Posted by: Evo CHNO | August 11, 2008 at 01:16 AM
If John Edwards will lie to people he supposedly loves, what makes us think he won't lie to the gullible public he thinks we all are? He obviously thinks we're dumb for believing his ridiculous story about offering to take a DNA test while his mistress is paid to refuse it. Why do we want this guy in office?
Posted by: jed | August 10, 2008 at 10:42 PM
To those who are raising examples of other politicians' sexual infidelities, I'd say, the "it's OK, everyone does it" defense doesn't hold water.
John Edwards' conduct was wrong. if John McCain or Barack Obama do the same thing tomorrow, it's still wrong.
Period.
Posted by: Bob | August 10, 2008 at 07:50 PM
I still curious why these videos happened in the first place. Without these videos (and their subsequent take down from the net last year) the Edwards affair would have never been discovered.
What does everyone think of the Rielle Hunter video? Hats off to Webcastr.com for airing them quietly since November waiting for this story to develop, (which it sure did alright!)
You can still see them here if you haven't seen them all:
www.webcastr.com
Posted by: Jerry | August 10, 2008 at 03:25 AM
"they just don’t care so long as they sell papers."
Well...frankly that IS the point, isn't it? I don't even pick one up to glance through it in the checkout line but I have to admit their business model works. How much money did the NY Times lose last year, and how much money did they make?
Posted by: Orion | August 08, 2008 at 03:59 PM
Crow and humble pie are on the menu for all of you people who disbelieved and were disrespectful of the Enquirer's journalistic chops.
Posted by: B-Daddy | August 08, 2008 at 01:46 PM
Hello evreyone,
What a white trash fooled all of us.
The principle is: Gemini can't be trust.
Posted by: Zack | August 08, 2008 at 12:35 PM
"...Enquirer hasn't been able to produce quotes, photos or even eyewitness accounts..."
Stand-by, my friend. Blackjack is played one card at a time.
Posted by: Snoop Diggity-DANG-Dawg | August 06, 2008 at 09:09 AM
I hope he didn't cheat, but if he did he should fess up, I'm sure his wife already knows if he had, and it's realy up too her to forgive him. And if he stands up to his mistake and voices it loud enough for you all to hear, what can any of you hold against him?
Not to be tossing stones but McCain cheated on his wife and people didn't mind voting for him, and he's running as a Republican and that's supose to be the Conservative Ticket? everybody give it a rest, when Jesus died on the cross he died for everyone's sins no just a few
If I were John Edwards I'd come clear on the issue say I'm sorry if I had too and get on with the election Obama needs a good VP and Edwards is the best choice
Posted by: Seaside | August 05, 2008 at 12:02 PM
americans for prosperity,
wal-mart,
the u.s. chamber of commerce,
every neo-con lobbying group in the country,
or ms. a. coulter trying to create more sales for her last book...
whoever all you all are, trying to diss this guy and start up rumors, all i have to ask is: why now? he's not running for president anymore, and yet you guys are still running scared of the guy. is it worth the money?
will any of your work do a damn thing to end poverty in this country? why drag him thru the mud of rumors now? is it john edwards you are afraid of? or losing your grip on taxpayers' dollars, your unethically gained profits...because of what he has to say?
Posted by: kenshin | August 02, 2008 at 09:26 PM
Compare and contrast to the LA Times' treatment of the final hour allegations against Arnold Shwarzenegger in his run for governor - no hesitation by the Times in reporting poorly sourced info in that instance. At least I can say about the National Enquirer their agenda is not political - it's reporting the news and selling papers. The Times, on the other hand...
Posted by: Truth | July 31, 2008 at 01:52 PM