or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › John Edwards Admits Affair
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

John Edwards Admits Affair

post #1 of 74
Thread Starter 
Apparently the National Enquirer was right after all.

ABCNews

Quote:
John Edwards repeatedly lied during his Presidential campaign about an extramarital affair with a novice filmmaker, the former Senator admitted to ABC News today.

In an interview for broadcast tonight on Nightline, Edwards told ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff he did have an affair with 44-year old Rielle Hunter, but said that he did not love her.

Edwards also denied he was the father of Hunter's baby girl, Frances Quinn, although the one-time Democratic Presidential candidate said he has not taken a paternity test.

Edwards said he knew he was not the father based on timing of the baby's birth on February 27, 2008. He said his affair ended too soon for him to have been the father.

Is this the adultery version of I smoked, but didn't inhale? I had sex but didn't love her. I didn't father the child but I haven't taken a paternity test.

Something always hasn't sat well about Edwards. Hopefully now anyone defending him will give up the nonsense about how you study poverty by working at a hedge fund and all the other ridiculous stuff he has accosted us with over the years. It doesn't say anything good or bad about one party or the other but should show all of us that bullshit is bullshit.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2 of 74
What kind of scum bag cheats on his wife while she dies of cancer?
post #3 of 74
post #4 of 74
Apparently the affair was before her breast cancer came back again.

And even so, this doesn't really have any bearing on Edwards's policy stances or any of his work. So douchebag husband maybe, but I'd say it's within the normal bounds of male-female relationships. It's not like called his wife a cunt.
post #5 of 74
Well, at least Ann Coulter had it all wrong.
post #6 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

What kind of scum bag cheats on his wife while she dies of cancer?

Newt Gingrich. He asked for forgiveness from God, and the media, naturally, forgave him. Newt cheated on two wives. Thats double the scandal! :P And it happened during Clinton's impeachment proceedings, to add insult to duplicity.

I think we have all forgotten about John McCain, and how he left his wife while she recovered from a severe car accident which left her permanently disabled and disfigured.

Then there's the case of scumbag Giuliani, another republican star whose first wife was his 2nd cousin... and whose career is littered in scandal. I wonder if he shared his penchant for crossdressing any of his numerous illicit partners?

Sexual scandals are also a non-issue in the case of Jeffrey Gannon, gay prostitute and phoney reporter who had virtually unlimited access to the G.W. Bush White House (post 9/11!), and had numerous "sleepovers" there. One wonders what kind of gay antics were going on behind the scenes \. (I have not linked this story because the mainstream media, predictably, buried it).

Then there was the child sex scandal in the Reagan/Bush Sr. White House. We don't hear much about that one, do we! Child sex stories make breakfast too hard to digest?
The powers that be in the media appear more tolerant of gay sex and pedophilia than regular man-woman adultery. Perhaps the Catholic Church has greater lobbying powers than we can imagine.

But here's the rub: The above are senior conservatives/republicans. Of course, Edwards is a total scumbag for this conduct, but lets have one rule for all, pretty please?

It seems as if the dems are assigned more accountability for their misdeeds.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #7 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

What kind of scum bag cheats on his wife while she dies of cancer?

Didn't Newt serve his wife while she was in the friggin' hospital dying of cancer?

And SJ's listed everything here I would, although I would point out that when 9/11 happened, Rudy was embroiled in a nasty, nasty divorce that was making national headlines. He was divorcing his wife for his mistress.

Here's a list of GOP sex scandals.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #8 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Didn't Newt serve his wife while she was in the friggin' hospital dying of cancer?

And SJ's listed everything here I would, although I would point out that when 9/11 happened, Rudy was embroiled in a nasty, nasty divorce that was making national headlines. He was divorcing his wife for his mistress.

Here's a list of GOP sex scandals.

There you go. And, by applying the Trumptman Sexual Misconduct Invalidates All Other Principles rule, I hope we can now give up the nonsense about how you help poor people by slashing social services and all the other ridiculous stuff these men have accosted us with over the years.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #9 of 74
John McCain cheated on his crippled wife with rich young heiress Cindy Hensley.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #10 of 74
Looks like a (D) resumé enhancement to me...
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #11 of 74
Personally I don't give a shit about extramarital affairs, I think it's common and natural thing that personally I don't engage in simply because I'm fortunate to have found the perfect wife, and I think marital fidelity doesn't belong in politics, regardless of party.

But thank God he didn't get the nomination.
post #12 of 74
Cheating on your wife brings a politician down for being a low-life, untrust-worthy criminal. Getting a BJ in the WH can get the president impeached.

Invading a sovereign nation under false pretenses, resulting in thousands of deaths on all sides... well, that's OK!

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #13 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Cheating on your wife brings a politician down for being a low-life, untrust-worthy criminal. Getting a BJ in the WH can get the president impeached.

Invading a sovereign nation under false pretenses, resulting in thousands of deaths on all sides... well, that's OK!

One of these days, some pol is going to figure out a way to blame his decision to have an affair on "faulty intelligence", and it will finally be OK to be unfaithful to a spouse.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #14 of 74
I'm not going to throw this down the partisan hallway -- but what the hell kind of politician could have this kind of dirt on him, and still try to run?

???

I guess this rules out the VP slot.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #15 of 74
<dusts for HRC's fingerprints>
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #16 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

I'm not going to throw this down the partisan hallway -- but what the hell kind of politician could have this kind of dirt on him, and still try to run?

???

I guess this rules out the VP slot.

Yeah. It's pretty fucking stupid of him.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #17 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Yeah. It's pretty fucking stupid of him.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #18 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Yeah. It's pretty fucking stupid of him.

Exactly so. He was a lowdown asshole for doing what he did (just like Bill Clinton), but he displayed total stupidity by lying about it (just like Bill Clinton). Maybe he's seen so many politicians lie so baldfacedly about matters of such greater significance than extramarital sex (like state sponsored terrorism, mass murder, illegal invasions, you name it), that he thought this one would slip through the net. I guess he forgot about Bill Clinton.

The appropriate response to questions about his personal life, regardless of how low he stooped in this affair, would have been "mind your own fucking goddamned business".... which is exactly what Bill Clinton should have said when he was asked a similar question some 10 years ago.

Its amazing how the corporate media can instantly morph from lapdog to crocodile, when the matter is relatively trivial or insignificant.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #19 of 74
Elizabeth Edwards has responded. And now we can all shut the fuck up about it.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #20 of 74
Admitting Mistakes?!! What??! Getting caught being whatever [anyone here who hasn't strayed cast the first stone] is one thing -- but this makes the Sarkozy thing look like a municipal zoning violation.


Not only can I cheat on my wife, I'm going to try to B.S. all of the people, all of the time, in perpetuity!

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #21 of 74

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #22 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Admitting Mistakes?!! What??! Getting caught being whatever [anyone here who hasn't strayed cast the first stone] is one thing -- but this makes the Sarkozy thing look like a municipal zoning violation.


Not only can I cheat on my wife, I'm going to try to B.S. all of the people, all of the time, in perpetuity!

I think the larger question, DMZ, is this: why do you care about the marital infidelities of John Edwards, who was a short-lived senator, an also-ran presidential candidate, a veep choice of a loser?

Seriously. Why do you care?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #23 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I think the larger question, DMZ, is this: why do you care about the marital infidelities of John Edwards, who was a short-lived senator, an also-ran presidential candidate, a veep choice of a loser?

Seriously. Why do you care?

No, don't get me wrong -- I don't care, once you look closely at your own local politicians, you see the stock characters, and you tend to expect certain things.

But if it were me, I'd do the SWOT thing and think "you know, maybe I should frontload the love child thing." And he didn't -- it seems like a rookie mistake.


When BHO was able to do the Judo move on Billary -- that got my attention. It means that if we need a guy to go out and shark other countries, he can do the job.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #24 of 74
Why do we ignore 3 billion years of evolution, sociology and psychology before declaring someone an asshole?

and what about this guy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7547148.stm
post #25 of 74
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Exactly so. He was a lowdown asshole for doing what he did (just like Bill Clinton), but he displayed total stupidity by lying about it (just like Bill Clinton). Maybe he's seen so many politicians lie so baldfacedly about matters of such greater significance than extramarital sex (like state sponsored terrorism, mass murder, illegal invasions, you name it), that he thought this one would slip through the net. I guess he forgot about Bill Clinton.

The appropriate response to questions about his personal life, regardless of how low he stooped in this affair, would have been "mind your own fucking goddamned business".... which is exactly what Bill Clinton should have said when he was asked a similar question some 10 years ago.

Its amazing how the corporate media can instantly morph from lapdog to crocodile, when the matter is relatively trivial or insignificant.


You've got to be kidding me. The only outlet that broke this with any sort of national coverage was The National Enquirer. No one else chased it down in fact most outlets were under explicit order not to even mention it. Edwards choose to confirm the story himself via an interview he agreed to on the opening day of the Olympics thus guaranteeing minimal coverage of this matter on the day it broke.

Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Elizabeth Edwards has responded. And now we can all shut the fuck up about it.

I doubt people will shut up about it because there is a kid with no father listed on his birth certificate still floating around. The only thing worse than coming clean is pretending to come clean while still lying.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #26 of 74
And then there was the reasoning behind invading Iraq, but that is another story, I guess. Sex is just so much more important.

Where's that darn remote?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #27 of 74
Thread Starter 
You'll have to ask Edwards as he voted for it.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #28 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Didn't Newt serve his wife while she was in the friggin' hospital dying of cancer?

And SJ's listed everything here I would, although I would point out that when 9/11 happened, Rudy was embroiled in a nasty, nasty divorce that was making national headlines. He was divorcing his wife for his mistress.

Here's a list of GOP sex scandals.

IM NOT A REPUBLICAN! Just because I'm critical of Obama (he's slipping BTW) doesn't mean I'm a republican. Just because I'm not part of the Obama echo chamber doesn't mean I support the other side.

Edwards can be his own scum bag independent of what any other politician does. But sure there are tons of them to go around.
post #29 of 74
Could we also be aware that, when we call Edwards a "scum bag," that that is a term that describes a used condom?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #30 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You've got to be kidding me. The only outlet that broke this with any sort of national coverage was The National Enquirer. No one else chased it down in fact most outlets were under explicit order not to even mention it. Edwards choose to confirm the story himself via an interview he agreed to on the opening day of the Olympics thus guaranteeing minimal coverage of this matter on the day it broke.



I doubt people will shut up about it because there is a kid with no father listed on his birth certificate still floating around. The only thing worse than coming clean is pretending to come clean while still lying.

But, again, why am I supposed to care if Edwards had an affair in 2006 and reconciled with his wife about it? Beyond the fact that it was stupid for him to run for preznit with this in his closet, why am I supposed to care?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #31 of 74
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

But, again, why am I supposed to care if Edwards had an affair in 2006 and reconciled with his wife about it? Beyond the fact that it was stupid for him to run for preznit with this in his closet, why am I supposed to care?

I don't recall anyone saying you had to care.

I'm noting that there is this notion out there that "Edwards admitted to it so now it should go away." The reasons it won't have nothing to do with partisan politics. There is still a baby out there with no daddy. There is the PAC paying her $114,000 for work that never appeared.

As I said before, the only thing worse than coming clean is pretending to come clean and then lying about it. There are several things here that still don't pass the B.S. test.

An example, Edwards claimed he told his wife about this affair, that it wasn't during her first cancer fight and that it also ended before the time frame of this kiddo. He then goes to see the woman, gets caught seeing her late at night, and btw he didn't tell his wife about that visit before it was to happen. That doesn't sound "past it" to me.

BTW, you still don't have to care about any of this.

There is also the ramifications of declaring he isn't the father which means of course that the woman in addition to helping Edwards cheat just happens to go sleeping around even more afterwards (or during) the time frame. I'm sure calling her a major slutbag is going to go over very well and make this all just easily go away.

Finally, you still don't have to care.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #32 of 74
Awesome. I will continue not to give a shit about a has-been politician who has never actually been close to holding national office.

And you can continue you care about the baby without a daddy. It's so sweet and kind of you!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #33 of 74
Read three articles on this issue... they all say another guy claims to be the father, so it might just be a situation between Edwards and his wife, and so yes, the woman in question seems to have been somewhat... promiscuous.

Would link, but the stories seem consistent enough so that anybody who reads through them would see the same info.

CNN now labels Edwards as a political outcast, just for having slept around. Edwards did not lie to the UN, did not order the invasion of a sovereign nation, did not lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of human beings.

No longer a story that needs attention, as there are far more important things to be discussed.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #34 of 74
Thread Starter 
You mean you read three articles that gave Edwards rendition of events and no other?

Why is that not a surprise?

Quote:
The family of John Edwards' former mistress, Rielle Hunter, is challenging the former senator to take a DNA paternity test after his claim that he did not father Hunter's 6-months-old child.

Former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards spoke at the East Riverside Health Center, a federally funded community clinic, in Detroit on June 14, 2007. On Friday, he admitted he had an extramarital affair with Rielle Hunter.

In the first reaction from Hunter's family, her younger sister Melissa told ABC News that Edwards should immediately follow through on his pledge to take a paternity test.

"I would challenge him to do so," the sister said.

ABCNews

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #35 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You've got to be kidding me. The only outlet that broke this with any sort of national coverage was The National Enquirer. No one else chased it down in fact most outlets were under explicit order not to even mention it.



Thats hardly surprising. The National Enquirer isn't exactly known as a deliverer of quality journalism. If you throw enough sh¡t at the wall, some will eventually stick there.

Quote:
Edwards choose to confirm the story himself via an interview he agreed to on the opening day of the Olympics thus guaranteeing minimal coverage of this matter on the day it broke.

And when it did, yesterday's mainstream TV was "all Edwards all the time".
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #36 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


And when it did, yesterday's mainstream TV was "all Edwards all the time".

No it wasn't. It's not today, either.

The liberal media always gives Democrats a pass. They're deliberating ignoring the Edwards' story in favor of droning on about some nonsense regarding forged documents from the Bush White House used to help drum up support for invading another country. Or they're yammering about the growing investigation into how the Bush White House decided to use the Justice Department as an enforcement arm of the Republican Party. Or some trivial horseshit.

Fucking liberal media.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #37 of 74
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

No it wasn't. It's not today, either.

The liberal media always gives Democrats a pass. They're deliberating ignoring the Edwards' story in favor of droning on about some nonsense regarding forged documents from the Bush White House used to help drum up support for invading another country. Or they're yammering about the growing investigation into how the Bush White House decided to use the Justice Department as an enforcement arm of the Republican Party. Or some trivial horseshit.

Fucking liberal media.

I must have a broken television. All I see is Olympics, Olympics, Olympics. When it isn't that it is Russia invading which is entirely justified.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #38 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I must have a broken television. All I see is Olympics, Olympics, Olympics. When it isn't that it is Russia invading which is entirely justified.

Nonsense. The liberal media has focused unrelentingly on these fake "scandals" because they will seize any opportunity to discredit and slime Republicans.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #39 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

CNN now labels Edwards as a political outcast, just for having slept around.

Well yeah. It was idiocy almost on par with Gary Hart. At least Donna Rice was cute.

Quote:
No longer a story that needs attention, as there are far more important things to be discussed.

So is Edwards at this point. He's done.
post #40 of 74
There should be a standard for presidential candidate mistresses. Movie stars, models and ex-beauty pagent winners only. You can fool around but all the guys have to be willing to say "yeah, but she's damn hot" and let their wives and girlfriends hit them for being a pig.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › John Edwards Admits Affair