August 08, 2008
Nuance: But Denies Child
— DrewM
DO NOT CLICK [ace]: This post has been censored by the Committee to Protect Elizabeth (acronym: MSM).
Story: I'm bold-facing the stuff that really makes John Edwards look like a hell of a guy.
Faggot? No fuckin' way. Only a straight guy could treat women this viciously.
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.
I didn't inhale... her pheremones.
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.
Uh-huh.
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.A former campaign aide, Andrew Young, has said he was the father of the child.
Read: Reille Hunter has been passed around more than a bong at a Phish concert.
What a sweetheart.
According to friends of Hunter, Edwards met her at a New York city bar in 2006....Edwards said his wife, Elizabeth, and others in his family became aware of the affair in 2006.
Edwards made a point of telling Woodruff that his wife's cancer was in remission when he began the affair with Hunter.
He seems to be denying paternity in order to avoid confessing he was schtupping this woman while his wife was dying of incurable cancer.
"Hey, I just fucked her when Elizabeth was in remission. It's like the Area Code theory, you know? If you're in another Area Code, or your wife is in remission, it's not really 'cheating.'"
This underscores the point I've been making, implicitly, for some time. "Protect Elizabeth"? Give me a fucking break.
You think she hasn't heard?
"I Didn't Love Her:" It occurs to me that Edwards is trying to not be a scumbag here, actually, by trying to reduce the pain for his wife by insisting he didn't love the other woman.
It probably doesn't help all that much -- I'm not sure that "it was just sexual" helps women cope, either -- but maybe his intentions are good here. I mean, he did a lot of bad stuff here along the way, but maybe on this point he's trying to mitigate the distress he's caused his wife.
More:
Edwards today admitted the National Enquirer was correct when it reported he had visited Hunter at the Beverly Hills Hilton last month.
The former Senator said his wife had not known about the meeting.
Yeah, you can never trust that National Enquirer. They make libelous claims all the fucking time, because they have all these writerly romanticized notions of bankruptcy and massive personal judgments.
So.... He was in Rielle Hunter's hotel room at 3 am, with "Andrew Young's Child" present, holding it and sweeping about, and probably having sex with Hunter. (Though I'm sure he denies that.)
He's having sex in front of someone else's kid? He's holding someone else's baby?
Okay.
ZOMFG: Better and better. Fucking Goldmine.
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.
Uh... huh. That's what friends do all the time. They pay your mistresses off to keep them quiet to protect you and also don't tell you about their incredible munificence, just to protect you further and keep you out of the loop.
The number of Secret Ace Babies that my old college buds are currently supporting without my knowledge runs into at least the high teens, I'm pretty sure.
They just do this stuff for me. Why? I don't know. They're just really, really, really good friends. They're like the most awsomely awesomacious friends in the whole awesome world.
Hmmm... Nixon tried admitting some, while denying the worst of it, in a gambit called the "Modified Limited Hang-Out." Clinton tried this too.
Did John Edwards just try the "Modified Limited Pull-Out"?
Posted by: DrewM at
10:00 AM
| Comments (182)
Post contains 756 words, total size 5 kb.
Too rich for words. Imagine if he has secrured the nomination. This guy is too much.
Posted by: Dr. Chopper at August 08, 2008 10:02 AM (vjl9g)
Posted by: Tami at August 08, 2008 10:03 AM (P3ErD)
Just heard it on the radio. He admits the affair but denies being the father, though. Also, says he has not taken a paternity test. What a fucking weasel.
Posted by: grc at August 08, 2008 10:05 AM (lMPRu)
Posted by: Dr. Chopper at August 08, 2008 10:05 AM (vjl9g)
Posted by: ReallyOldGuy at August 08, 2008 10:05 AM (THsyA)
Posted by: Slublog at August 08, 2008 10:07 AM (R8+nJ)
Ace fixed it.
How great is this...
Edwards told ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff he did have an affair with 42-year old Rielle Hunter, but said that he did not love her.
So I guess that changes everything.
Posted by: DrewM. at August 08, 2008 10:07 AM (hlYel)
With the record of payments, this admission and the possibility of a huge payout in speaking and appearance fees this Hunter girl might come out into the limelight.
And sue Silky Pony for child support.
Posted by: memomachine at August 08, 2008 10:08 AM (3PLow)
Posted by: mesablue at August 08, 2008 10:08 AM (5yNaE)
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 08, 2008 10:09 AM (1Ug6U)
He lied over and over again, so obviously it's not unfair to assume he's lying about this and will alter claim he just didn't know better.
This Rielle girl must be pretty irritated. She is the slut who fucked Ms. Edwards's husband, and his campaign guy, and however many other people, and her child will always be known for being a high profile version of one of those Maury kids.
Why is Edwards meeting a girl he merely screwed long long ago, in the middle of the night, while hiding in bathrooms, to hold the baby he didn't father?
This is pathetic.
Posted by: ghy at August 08, 2008 10:09 AM (8jYMc)
Posted by: grc at August 08, 2008 10:09 AM (lMPRu)
I look forward to the NY Times lambasting John for not protecting Elizabeth.
Not because he cheated on her but becaus he should have embargoed the story too. Admitting it only gives ammo to the evil right wingers.
Posted by: Veeshir at August 08, 2008 10:09 AM (/teSi)
Posted by: Bill Clinton at August 08, 2008 10:10 AM (YCVBL)
Why would anyone pay $114,000 to a "novice film-maker"?
Cuz she made a novice tape of them together?
Posted by: Tami at August 08, 2008 10:10 AM (P3ErD)
Posted by: CFB at August 08, 2008 10:11 AM (8r/RM)
My, my. These are two very forgiving wives aren't they?
Posted by: DrewM. at August 08, 2008 10:11 AM (hlYel)
Edwards also denied he was the father of Hunter's baby girl, Frances Quinn, although ... 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.
Edwards made a point of telling Woodruff that his wife's cancer was in remission when he began the affair with Hunter.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.
This guy is an unmitigated scumbag. Does any of this bullshit matter?
I didn't love her, it's ok
It can't be my kid, it's ok.
My wife wasn't actually dieing when I fucked her, it's ok.
I didn't know about the money, it's ok.
To hell with protecting Lizzy, she has known since the first night he porked her.
And if the affair is over AND the kid isn't his why the hell is he visiting?
Shave your head and become a Tibetan monk Silky, it's your only chance of getting anybody to believe a word you say at this point.
Posted by: Rocks at August 08, 2008 10:12 AM (Q1lie)
Posted by: Z Ryan at August 08, 2008 10:12 AM (PDeVA)
Well... there it is. He becomes another one of the 25% of married a-holes who cheat on their wives. And maybe we won't have to hear him talking down to us on national TV anymore.
But, hey, at least maybe the baby can grow up without being a notorious bastard. Could you imagine being called an illegitimate bastard by a bunch of self-righteous retards who don't even know you from infancy into adulthood?
Posted by: oops at August 08, 2008 10:14 AM (TBoxe)
Note the weaselese:
Edwards 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 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.
Posted by: Tushar at August 08, 2008 10:14 AM (IlgNp)
Posted by: grc at August 08, 2008 10:14 AM (lMPRu)
ghy,
That's a great point.
How dumb does Edwards think we are? Very apparently. But then again he made a fortune channeling dead babies to juries so it fits with his professional experience.
Posted by: DrewM. at August 08, 2008 10:15 AM (hlYel)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at August 08, 2008 10:15 AM (zpaDL)
Of course, if this was a loveless affair, of course Edwards has been doing this for years. I hope your wife was never Edward's paralegal. If so, you better check to see if your son or daughter's hair is ridiculously silky-smooth.
Posted by: ghy at August 08, 2008 10:16 AM (8jYMc)
Posted by: Bill Clinton at August 08, 2008 10:16 AM (hlYel)
Kick 'em when they're down, that's what I say.
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at August 08, 2008 10:17 AM (Ds4I5)
Posted by: grc at August 08, 2008 10:19 AM (lMPRu)
Posted by: iowavette at August 08, 2008 10:19 AM (0p4xh)
Posted by: mare at August 08, 2008 10:19 AM (xMkst)
they'll shoot bullets of confusion and distortions into the crowd, then drive off, never to be held accountable. Drive-by media.
Posted by: Z Ryan at August 08, 2008 10:20 AM (PDeVA)
Edwards today admitted the National Enquirer was correct when it reported he had visited Hunter at the Beverly Hills Hilton last month.
The former Senator said his wife had not known about the meeting.
Posted by: DrewM. at August 08, 2008 10:21 AM (hlYel)
Just another UNC-CH scumbag, AND, his buddies, read Erskine Bowles, Bill Clinton's chief of staff, now president of UNC, are PAYING him with taxpayer's money to run the "Poverty Center at UNC"
NO SHAME.
PRICK.
I await the editorials here in NC condemning him??? Yeah right, hold your breath.
So, WHAT democrat can you trust? The dead ones.
Posted by: kempermanx at August 08, 2008 10:21 AM (ANRVq)
I also feel bad for her. She's a hardcore lefty, but she's not mean. I recall when she rebuked democraticunderground for being so ugly. Even though she and I have nothing in common, I know she didn't deserve to be married to a guy who uses her as a tool to win office, betrays her utterly, and will deny being the father of the kid he's spending their money on, just so he doesn't have to admit the obvious: that his wife was dying while he was fucking countless slutty girls.
Posted by: ghy at August 08, 2008 10:24 AM (8jYMc)
Posted by: grc at August 08, 2008 10:24 AM (lMPRu)
"I didn't love her?" Is he out of his freaking gourd?!?!?
Just how pissed off do you think Rielle Hunter is now? If he wanted her to change her name to Chatty Cathy, that was exactly the right way to do it.
Popcorn for everybody!!
Posted by: VKI at August 08, 2008 10:26 AM (xRo/Z)
Sorry but BIG bullshit. The only thing he is trying to mitigate is the PR damage. This is something the average voter might buy. Lizzy already knows he only loves himself so his saying this is redundant to her.
Posted by: Rocks at August 08, 2008 10:26 AM (Q1lie)
Sneaking around a hotel late at night to see a woman you don't love and a kid you claim isn't your's - he's insane.
I agree with Drew about Elizabeth - no matter what you think of her politics she's been wronged by her scum of a husband - one can only hope there is a special place in hell for someone as low and worthless as John Edwards.
Posted by: Murph at August 08, 2008 10:27 AM (m7FCp)
Posted by: DrewM. at August 08, 2008 10:27 AM (hlYel)
Why would he need to unless he wants to either run again or hold political office? It's still all about him.
Posted by: grc at August 08, 2008 10:27 AM (lMPRu)
Gloat Gloat Gloat. Sorry Elizabeth, your husband is a prick.
Are you going to move out?? Or is this just one of those things, boys will do.
How is that going to sell with your dike friends over at DU?
Feminist? Bullshit?
Posted by: kempermanx at August 08, 2008 10:28 AM (ANRVq)
The affair goes back to 2006, he says he ended before June 2007... yet he recently dropped by her hotel room and stayed from 10pm-2am? He hadn't had a chance to give the "it's not you, it's me" speech before then?
It's all way too lawyeresque- "Yes, your honor, my client did rape beat the victim, but someone else must've killed her after he left."
My personal theory- Edwards is the father, but won't acknowledge it because he's afraid the kid will be straight.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at August 08, 2008 10:29 AM (rf03a)
Posted by: Sarahw at August 08, 2008 10:29 AM (7sl9X)
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at August 08, 2008 10:30 AM (1Ug6U)
Now come on this isn't World News Daily. Even National Enquirer wouldn't say that. First Goatse Obama Signal, now this. AoS is going downhill and we were already near the bottom to begin with.
Posted by: Rocks at August 08, 2008 10:30 AM (Q1lie)
Yes and no. Like Hillary, not only did they accept it but they actively participated in lying to the public about it. And while initially, I didn't think Elizabeth was that bad, later on the campaign trail she got pretty nasty.
Now, does this mean that the National Enquirer gets a Pulitzer?
Posted by: grc at August 08, 2008 10:30 AM (lMPRu)
Edwards has been out of the running for the White House for some time... I honestly think that the press won't cover it because he's a guy who cheated on his wife. And, statistically, 20-25% of married people do this, which is enough to put a damper on the story... because it is statistically probably that someone in the editorial stream at every single outlet will think, "Poor chump! I hope it never happens to me." There'll be a couple stories, because he's famous, but beyond that, these kinds of stories just don't get far unless the person is actually in office.
I used to care about this sort of thing until I found out that my dad cheated on my mom. And as angry as I was about it, my mom was the one who told me to stay out of it and let her handle it. And I realized that these stories are more tragic than anything else... and the perpetrators tend to pay for it in their own personal misery, shame, and the destruction of their own relationships.
It's like trying to punish an alcoholic... usually they punish themselves and their families more than the state ever could.
It's still ironic. And it will put him on ice for a few years. But he'll come back.
Posted by: oops at August 08, 2008 10:31 AM (TBoxe)
And damn proud of it, too.
Posted by: grc at August 08, 2008 10:33 AM (lMPRu)
Posted by: Ivana Trump at August 08, 2008 10:37 AM (NMK3S)
But you're right... Edwads is paying a very heavy price for his idiotic behaivior, and he's not that unusual to be such an asshole. Though most men who cheat do not do it this way...
* paying hundreds of thousands in hush money...
* making an innocent man pretend to be the cheater, knowing the man has kids who are as hurt as you were by your dad
* lying about the timing to protect himself on the charge of cheating on a dying woman
* cheating on a dying woman
Posted by: ghy at August 08, 2008 10:37 AM (8jYMc)
Posted by: electricferret at August 08, 2008 10:37 AM (kKO7A)
I think it is lame for people to talk shit about Elizabeth Edwards. So what, she's a democrat. So what, she supported her husband's candidacy. Lots of men and women support their spouses against external criticism from self-righteous strangers, because validating the criticism of strangers just adds to pain and humiliation of the affair.
Nobody here has any idea what she is going through or has gone through.
I can guarantee that what she has suffered through because of her husband is horrible and humiliating. On the other hand, many people have many legitimate reasons for staying with someone who has cheated on them.
It's just trash to attack her for something her husband did.
Posted by: oops at August 08, 2008 10:38 AM (TBoxe)
Posted by: Gary Hart at August 08, 2008 10:39 AM (YCVBL)
If they make the Ivy league I might just have to fess up.
Posted by: Rocks at August 08, 2008 10:39 AM (Q1lie)
From what I've seen, people on this site have gone out of their way not to "talk shit" about Elizabeth Edwards, and there's been quite a bit of sympathy for her.
Idiot.
Posted by: Slublog at August 08, 2008 10:40 AM (R8+nJ)
Devil's Advocate time once again...
Yes, cheating on his wife was wrong, and it might seem even more immoral because his wife was ill with cancer... but in a way doesn't that make it a bit more understandable? Elizabeth is undergoing cancer treatment, perhaps chemo and radiation- puking, hair falling out, etc. She probably wasn't very interested in sex at that time, and the prospect wouldn't have been all that appealing if she was; both would've been under a lot of stress.
So here you have a wealthy, famous metrosexual with a sick wife who (through no fault of her own) isn't putting out, won't be for the forseeable future, during a difficult time. Edwards wouldn't exactly be the first married guy to cheat under those circumstances.
TL;DR: Is it really that much worse that he cheated on his wife when she was ill, when perhaps that illness may have prompted the infidelity?
Posted by: Hollowpoint at August 08, 2008 10:40 AM (rf03a)
Now in truth, I do feel bad for his wife
I don't. She knows what she married. I only feel bad for the kids because they don't get to choose.
Posted by: Warden at August 08, 2008 10:45 AM (QoR4a)
You mean he won't have a chance at getting in the cabinet or AG -- both jobs he is not qualified with? Tough. H
Posted by: grc at August 08, 2008 10:46 AM (lMPRu)
ghy, of course the way he dealt with it is horrible. But, I cannot begin to tell you how I felt when I discovered certain details about my own dad. And I saw the extent to which he (and my mom) were willing to go to cover it up and deny it. And, sadly, I knew, but heard him badmouth Bill Clinton over and over again for doing the same thing. There aren't words to describe...
I just know, that as angry as I was with my own dad, I would never tolerate anyone, much less a stranger trying to use the situation to their advantage, badmouthing him or my mom without throwing some punches.
It's our family's problem, nobody elses.
I feel fine, I suppose, referring to it in an abstract in a fairly anonymous forum with people who, for the most part, I regard as decent folks. But many, many years have gone by. And to a certain extent, I consider the problem dealt with, and the appropriate apologies and corrections have been made.
But it still makes my blood boil, obviously.
Posted by: oops at August 08, 2008 10:46 AM (TBoxe)
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.
Oh fucking hell... here I try and (at least pretend to) defend him, and then he says something that could only be believed by a complete retard? How did the reporters not either fall over laughing or punch him right in the balls for insulting their intelligence so blatantly?
Posted by: Hollowpoint at August 08, 2008 10:46 AM (rf03a)
Posted by: Sue at August 08, 2008 10:46 AM (Jol77)
The big thing here isn't John Edwards, it's the fucking Committee to Protect Elizabeth (acronym: MSM) covering for this jerkoff.
You know who's wives were hurt by MSM reports about straying husbands? David Vitter's wife, Larry Craig's wife. One's husband slept with whores, another one's husband's had a "wide stance" in a bathroom.
And yet... the Media didn't bestow "beloved" status on these women. No, they reported the stories with relish.
And here?
FUCKING BLACKOUT.
Posted by: ace at August 08, 2008 10:47 AM (1WR4H)
Posted by: grc at August 08, 2008 10:47 AM (lMPRu)
Speak for yourself. Only cheaters try to rationalize it by pretending everybody does it.
Posted by: grc at August 08, 2008 10:49 AM (lMPRu)
As far as John. If he had just pulled a Spitzer I would have sympathize. Still lousy but not outright scummy.
This farce is almost criminal in it's stupidity and now he is just being crass about it.
Posted by: Rocks at August 08, 2008 10:49 AM (Q1lie)
She's their buddy.
And they decided to tank stories based on who their buddies are.
One can have sympathies for Elizabeth Edwards and even report a story with some senstitivity without giving up journalistic principles altogether.
This was news. It was ALWAYS news. It was always pretty obviously true (and anyone who dug into this at all could have determined that in five or six hours).
The media blacked it out entirely.
To protect a single person in the US whose politics they shared.
Posted by: ace at August 08, 2008 10:49 AM (1WR4H)
I said "many," not "all."
Posted by: ace at August 08, 2008 10:50 AM (1WR4H)
"Edwards said his wife, Elizabeth, and others in his family became aware of the affair in 2006."
What a guy. Makes Elizabeth out to be a liar also.
Posted by: Molon Labe at August 08, 2008 10:50 AM (kYpqT)
I think a lot of folks are misunderstanding this.
Elizabeth is the engine that drives Edwards to run. She is the nutty leftist elitist who thinks her chosen one can save the world.
She has been like this forever, since law school. She would overlook the screwing around, she probably didn't give it up much, oh the thought of that, so she simply wants the power that comes with the "man" and his campaign.
What a great feminist she is. She is getting what she enabled.
Posted by: kempermanx at August 08, 2008 10:50 AM (ANRVq)
Posted by: grc at August 08, 2008 10:51 AM (lMPRu)
Posted by: Slublog at August 08, 2008 10:54 AM (R8+nJ)
"Lizzie was also in on the lie."
"Like Hillary, not only did they accept it but they actively participated in lying to the public about it."
"To hell with protecting Lizzy, she has known since the first night he porked her."
"Gloat Gloat Gloat. Sorry Elizabeth, your husband is a prick. Are you going to move out?? Or is this just one of those things, boys will do. How is that going to sell with your dike friends over at DU? Feminist? Bullshit?"
These are the kinds of things I was responding to, Slublog. In my mind, I think they are lame comments. But yeah, I think most people are sympathetic to Elizabeth Edwards... and they should be. And, I also think there is virtue to "protecting Elizabeth" and letting the story go away as another celebrity sex scandal. No need to call names.
Posted by: oops at August 08, 2008 10:54 AM (TBoxe)
I really think he......Good God, that British woman really does have huge....
what were we talking about?
Posted by: ReallyOldGuy at August 08, 2008 10:54 AM (THsyA)
John, meet me down at the bus stop and we'll work it out.
Posted by: Obama at August 08, 2008 10:56 AM (jdXw+)
Posted by: Gina Gershon at August 08, 2008 10:56 AM (Q1lie)
If his wife knew about the misuse of campaign funds, and there is also that implication, she doesn't get a pass.
Posted by: grc at August 08, 2008 10:56 AM (lMPRu)
Posted by: Obligatory AoSHQ profanity quotient maintenance comment at August 08, 2008 10:57 AM (C3mTI)
Posted by: Barack Obama at August 08, 2008 10:59 AM (hlYel)
So Edwards claims the affair ended in 2006.
Hunter claims she didn't even meet Edwards until 2007.
I wasn't a math major but that doesn't seem right to me.
Posted by: JackStraw at August 08, 2008 10:59 AM (VBon8)
1. I think someone who is dying of cancer does merit a bit more sympathy.
2. The politician in question didn't even win a political election. It's like worrying about Dukakis' sex life, which with those eyebrows and that name, might be quite bizarre. It's irrelevant now. And it is much harder to justify heavy coverage and investigative reporting as news rather than tabloid journalism.
3. The story just officially broke. So give it 24 hours before calling it a blackout.
Posted by: oops at August 08, 2008 11:00 AM (TBoxe)
Let's get real: feminists want to have sex with whoever is the "Big Man" and thats why Clinton-Monica and Edwards banging Hunter is no big deal. In fact, Feminists love this sort of thing and want to do it themselves.
The dog isn't barking in the night time because the dog knows the intruder. Every feminist in the world would love to have sex with Edwards regardless if Elizabeth Edwards is dying or not.
Posted by: whiskey at August 08, 2008 11:00 AM (4878o)
oops, I was referring to the media protecting Lizzy (as in to hell with that), not John or anyone sympathizing. I am sure the MSM have much better sources in the Dem world than NE and someone must have known this wasn't news to Lizzy.
So it wasn't to protect her. As Ace said is was to protect the Dem label.
Posted by: Gina Gershon at August 08, 2008 11:00 AM (Q1lie)
"He's having sex in front of someone else's kid? Now come on this isn't World News Daily."
Kid was sleeping in the bathroom sink, didn't see anything (like in the movie Panic in Needle Park.)
Looking forward to Rielle's counterattack.
Good news: NRO's The Corner has lifted the embargo on the story. Guess it isn't "trash" anymore.
Posted by: g Hussein p at August 08, 2008 11:00 AM (B9rV2)
Didn't John Mccain do much of these same things when he moved to Cindy Mccain over the original wife who was crippled in a car accident?
Granted, Mccain was probably not mentally healthy after his time in Hanoi, but that won't be a good defense if this becomes a bigger issue.
Posted by: ghy at August 08, 2008 11:01 AM (8jYMc)
Only the last comment you cite could conceivably be considered "talking shit" about Elizabeth Edwards. I disagree about the need to "protect" Elizabeth - news is news. Did the media feel a similar compulsion to protect Mrs. Vitter, or Mrs. Craig? Their actions in this case are consistent with their spiking of the Clinton-Lewinsky story - their first instinct is to protect those of a particular ideology.
No need to call names.
Here's a deal for you - stop accusing the folks on this site of doing something they did not, and I'll stop pointing out how foolish it makes you look.
Posted by: Slublog at August 08, 2008 11:01 AM (R8+nJ)
Posted by: Rocks at August 08, 2008 11:01 AM (Q1lie)
I'm surprised he didn't just excuse it by saying that there were 2 Americas and he needed a piece of ass in each.
Posted by: Andy at August 08, 2008 11:01 AM (C3mTI)
Posted by: grc at August 08, 2008 11:01 AM (lMPRu)
Posted by: Ivana Trump at August 08, 2008 11:02 AM (NMK3S)
Posted by: stace at August 08, 2008 11:03 AM (JO0c/)
1. I think someone who is dying of cancer does merit a bit more sympathy.
True. We'd at least expect, oh, her former vice presidential candidate, presidential candidate and possible Obama cabinet official husband not to screw around on her.
The politician in question didn't even win a political election. It's like worrying about Dukakis' sex life, which with those eyebrows and that name, might be quite bizarre. It's irrelevant now. And it is much harder to justify heavy coverage and investigative reporting as news rather than tabloid journalism.
Was Bill Bennett a politician?
The story just officially broke. So give it 24 hours before calling it a blackout.
No, the story that's been out there for weeks has now been confirmed. There's a difference. There was a blackout, and the media was complicit.
Posted by: Slublog at August 08, 2008 11:04 AM (R8+nJ)
In an August 8 interview with ABC's Bob Woodruff, Edwards reversed his statements and admitted to repeatedly lying about not having had an affair with Hunter, but continued to claim that he is not the father of her child, as the affair allegedly ended before the time of the girl's conception. A campaign aide, Andrew Young, has stated that he, not Edwards, is the girl's father. [75]
No mention that he hasn't taken a paternity test or that his family found out in 2006, etc.
Posted by: grc at August 08, 2008 11:04 AM (lMPRu)
Edwards loses on on VP sweepstakes due to too perfect hair, assinine populist rhetoric and being Hunter woman's baby daddy, mostly baby daddy.
Posted by: Thus Spake Ortner at August 08, 2008 11:04 AM (r3L6K)
Posted by: oops at August 08, 2008 11:04 AM (TBoxe)
Posted by: JackStraw at August 08, 2008 11:06 AM (VBon8)
Posted by: stace at August 08, 2008 11:06 AM (JO0c/)
Posted by: Andy at August 08, 2008 11:06 AM (C3mTI)
Yeah, well I guess hollow suits you as a screen name. Wife isn't putting out because she is fucking dying so go hump the one you met in a bar? I doubt that will work as a valid reason.
Your lack of a penis renders your opinion on this matter invalid.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at August 08, 2008 11:07 AM (rf03a)
I knocked up a white woman once! Hell Obama even watched!
Posted by: Reverend Wright at August 08, 2008 11:07 AM (Q1lie)
It can't be his kid. He was just in the room masturbating with her panties on while other guys were having sex with her.
He is just an inocent cuckold.
Posted by: Lemmiwinks at August 08, 2008 11:08 AM (Nwbo8)
Posted by: BrokGrowBarRock at August 08, 2008 11:15 AM (Zs+zn)
I still say he thought she was to old to swell, that's why he picked her.
I betcha Clinton got one the day after Chelsea was born.
Posted by: Rocks at August 08, 2008 11:15 AM (Q1lie)
Bill Bennett isn't a politician. Even if he were, his family problems are his business. I see no need to "get even" because the press is comprised of opportunistic a-holes. If you want to go after someone, criticize the reporters and media outlets for their coverage of Craig, Vitter, and Bennett. Because, in the end, it is personal and people should be left alone unless their behavior, words, or decisions have a direct consequence for you.
Now, Slu, I was not accusing everyone on this site of being jerks. I was responding to things which rubbed me the wrong way. I should have been more specific up front and identified the posts which I disagreed with. So I most certainly apologize to anyone who was not trashing Elizabeth Edwards, but who thought I was saying was.
I tend to respond very personally to stories about cheating because: a) I have a very, very special contempt for cheaters. b) I have a very, very special sympathy for people who are cheated on. c) I believe that it is a personal problem that effects the individuals in ways that are too complicated for outsiders to understand. d) I know if I were in their shoes, I wouldn't want public discussion limited in ways that the law won't allow.
Posted by: oops at August 08, 2008 11:16 AM (TBoxe)
I'm trying not to engage in spite, but damnit it's difficult, and here's why:
I'm not married, but I've never cheated on anybody. I don't want to cheat on my wife when I get married and I don't want to have to engage in a long argument with her about why cheating in a marriage might be a bad thing. When Hillary stood by Bill, from what I've heard, marriage counselors started to have more women saying things to the effect of "well, she stood by her man, maybe I should just accept it." In the case of Silda Spitzer, in the case of Elizabeth Edwards, in the case of Hillary Clinton, I can't help but thinking they are making a deal where they value prominence the most and are making life more difficult for people who don't want cheating to become more widely accepted in the process.
Posted by: AD at August 08, 2008 11:18 AM (8mGNb)
Posted by: oops at August 08, 2008 11:18 AM (TBoxe)
I mean, look at the effort this poor moonbat is putting forth, for what? Trying to get everyone to admit that Elizabeth Edwards in not all that bad?
Okay, oops, is the story about Edwards, his long-term lying, his apparent continued lying, and therefore his unfitness for any office above dogcatcher, or is is more about how awful it is to be punished for doing something 'normal'? I mean, that begins to sound like the rapist saying, "Hey! She was asking for it." and being shown pictures of the victim having been beaten black and blue.
I *know* one of your idols has been shown to have feet of clay (perhaps you should be taking a much closer look at O-man), but get a grip.
Posted by: JorgXMcKie at August 08, 2008 11:19 AM (1Sf5X)
Sorry but that comment is filled with all kinds of bullshit.
No, he's not running but he was widely considered a candidate for VP or a cabinet post. His recent endorsement of Obama received live coverage on the cable and broadcast news programs and he was going to get a highlighted speaking gig at the upcoming convention.
He's not some has been. Well, he is now but wasn't until this came out.
The story just officially broke. So give it 24 hours before calling it a blackout.
Are you retarded? That's the whole point of Ace and others covering this. It has been out there for weeks now except the MSM was willfully ignoring it and Edwards was flat out lying about it.
Does a story 'officially' break when the subject chooses to address it? Can you name any other politician who gets that particular courtesy?
Posted by: DrewM. at August 08, 2008 11:20 AM (hlYel)
There are so many different facets to this story: the affair, the love child, the opportunist Hunter (appropriate name), the $114K payout to Hunter for video work that she has never done or has prior experience, the enquirer breaking a story of the very poorly concealed affair, the MSM lockdown, etc.. Tis a cauldron of what is wrong with our society.
Posted by: sergei at August 08, 2008 11:20 AM (AGMH1)
That's the point. The media splashed his legal habits all over the news and labeled him a hypocrite for what reason? I can only think of one, and it doesn't make them look all that good.
Because, in the end, it is personal and people should be left alone unless their behavior, words, or decisions have a direct consequence for you.
You've just eliminated about 90% of what the media should be allowed to report. Sorry, but the Edwards story is news, like it or not. His strong showing in the primary made him a contender for the VP slot (again) or a future administration post if Obama wins the election. As a public figure, he should have known better than risk his career like this, not to mention the complete and utter disregard he showed for his wife, family and supporters.
You have my sympathy for what you personally endured, but cheating is not at all a personal issue. As your words show, it has long-term destructive effects - the Clintonian idea that it's just between the person who cheated and his or her family is nonsense.
Posted by: Slublog at August 08, 2008 11:22 AM (R8+nJ)
Well, goody for you. But everyone else also has their own personal feelings about cheating and yours do not trump anyone else's.
Posted by: grc at August 08, 2008 11:22 AM (lMPRu)
Personally, I cannot get too outraged about adultery. Not that it is'nt dishonorable, but it just doesn't rise to the level of pure evil, but more like a character flaw. Of course, for people who claim to have superior character as their main qualification for elected office, I feel a bit more strongly than that.
But an institution like the national media who chose what to cover, and what to cover up, based on their personal political loyalties, and in violation of every sanctimonious proclamation of honor they bray out... that is completely despicable, and entirely worthy of the loathsome jackals they have become.
Die faster, please. Your stench is horrible.
Posted by: sherlock at August 08, 2008 11:22 AM (xqzGc)
LOL. And who is humiliated on national television at 9:00 PM, 8:00 Central? I think my opinion is valid or ole Johnny Two Americas wouldn't be apologizing.
Posted by: Sue at August 08, 2008 11:22 AM (Jol77)
AD: I used to feel that way, too. But after going through it with my own family, I think there is a lot of pressure for women to keep their household in order and to not let people know that cheating even happened in the first place. It is humiliating to be cheated on. On top of that, many people have additional reasons to keep the family together: a) they want to protect their children from the truth, b) they want to preserve stability for themselves and their children, c) they have a religious belief which they are committed to, d) they love their spouse and want them to fix their mistake and succeed in spite of it, e) in some cases, they might fear for their lives or reputations, f) they might feel like the cheating was their fault in the first place (they were too sick, too busy, too distant, etc).
And if you look at the numbers, overwhelmingly, people view cheating as bad behavior (over 90%), yet, somehow, between 20 and 30% of married people actually do.
Until she actually addresses the matter publicly, I think there is no sense in trying to figure out what her particular case is. Maybe she never wants to talk about it... and she shouldn't have to.
Posted by: oops at August 08, 2008 11:27 AM (TBoxe)
Why do people think I like Edwards? He's done. That should be good enough for anyone. And if ever runs for office again, this issue will continue to be with him, probably even moreso, if Elizabeth dies.
I just don't see the need to try to out-do the outrages of the left. That's who they are. That's what they do. It's perfectly reasonable to point to the contrasts between the coverage dems get vs republicans. It's perfectly reasonable to criticize journalists and news organizations for one-sided reporting.
It is childish to gloat over some depraved individual's vices and the nightmare he has created for his dying wife and kids.
Posted by: oops at August 08, 2008 11:33 AM (TBoxe)
Your lack of a penis renders your opinion on this matter invalid.
Jumping in here. Her lack of a penis in this instance is meaningless. Why? Because there are certain tenets of morality that are universal. Not screwing around on your dying spouse just because you're not getting any is, imho, one of them.
Posted by: TiredWench at August 08, 2008 11:34 AM (Kx1hM)
LOL. And who is humiliated on national television at 9:00 PM, 8:00 Central? I think my opinion is valid or ole Johnny Two Americas wouldn't be apologizing.
INVALID.
OK, I'm mostly joking. Thing is- when a woman cheats, there's a tendency (especially by women) to assume that it was at least partially the husband's fault- he's bad in bed, not attentive enough, spends too much time at work, etc.
When a man cheats? He's a scumbag who's actions can only be explained by his being an evil bastard. It's not as simple as that- wrong though it is, a lot of men cheat because they're not getting any at home or because their wives are no longer appealing sexually. Men don't have the same emotional attachment to sex that women tend to.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at August 08, 2008 11:36 AM (rf03a)
Posted by: JorgXMcKie at August 08, 2008 04:19 PM (1Sf5X)
Thanks. That's just the kind of confidence-building comment we needed.
And if you must know, John Edwards is not welcome to join our ranks. Although we have seen the pictures of Ms. Hunter and are quite impressed with his skills.
Posted by: Dogcatchers at August 08, 2008 11:36 AM (C3mTI)
I know, I sound like a parent who's telling a kid that his new found toy is really just an enema nozzle. But, boy, there are lots of other toys in the toybox. You don't need to put that poopy thing in your mouth.
Posted by: oops at August 08, 2008 11:37 AM (TBoxe)
Actually, you sound more like a condescending scold who is over-enamored with your own sense of righteousness. Save the lectures, 'kay?
Posted by: Slublog at August 08, 2008 11:40 AM (R8+nJ)
I have an idea for a new Photoshop art-form. It is beyond my capabilities, but FWIW:
Remember the old Mad Magaizine "fold-overs" where they had a scene on the back cover that both asked and illustrated some question, and then when you folded along two dotted lines, a new picture appeared, along with a caption answering the question?
I vaguely remember one that was a slam on the National Enquirer. Either the before or after picture was of "A Jackel Retching", implying the standards of NE were as low as you can go! Why am I getting a vibe about John Eedwards all of a sudden?...
Imagine an animated .GIF like the famous RatherGate "throbbing memo" that transformed from a Lucy Ramirez memo to a Word document, only this one would fold from a picture of a Jackal retching, to a picture of the hero of this debacle, perhaps doing something Silky like combing his hair!
The connection with the NE and the phoney mockery directed at them is priceless! As is the connection between Edwards and a jackel retching.
Posted by: sherlock at August 08, 2008 11:43 AM (h6sl7)
He did this, not the media who is finally reporting it, not bloggers, not commenters on this or other blogs. He put himself in the public arena, knowing full well what he had done/was currently doing, and he is reaping the reward for his actions. It really is too bad that he has family that are humiliated, but unfortunately bad things happen to all people, even to me and to you. The fact that she will be embarrassed about this coming to light does not make it less newsworthy. It is news, mostly because he lied about it and likely paid hush money, and it should be reported fairly and accurately.
Posted by: misplaced Texan at August 08, 2008 11:45 AM (1OiHj)
I know, I sound like a parent who's telling a kid that his new found toy is really just an enema nozzle.
No, you just sound like someone who is willing to give Elizabeth Edwards a pass on everything because she is sick and her husband cheated.. Not to sick to play attack dog during the campaign, to lie for her husband so they could run for president, to post on DU, home of the crazies. Bullshit. We are all dying someday. Nobody knows what when on in their relationship behind closed doors, and yea, maybe she did drive him away years ago. Besides, nothing has ever stopped the press from hounding Republicans including McCain whom the NYT claimed had an affair with a lobbyist when they didn't have a shred off proof.
Me, I'm loving the fact that the most sanctimonious, cringe inducing, ambulance chasing shit stain on the left who never stopped lecturing us on being better people is not only proving to be a liar but he is going down even bigger when he is proven to be lying about the paternity of the baby.
I think I shall dip my balls in this.
Posted by: JackStraw at August 08, 2008 11:45 AM (VBon8)
Slublog... you are very quick to call someone a name or lecture people on how they are out of line. And if someone chimes in with a contrary point of view, you crap your pants over it. I can't stop you from trying to have everything both ways. But you need to show a little more maturity.
Posted by: oops at August 08, 2008 11:52 AM (TBoxe)
I never heard that excuse before but I have heard that they were fucked up whores with serious psych problems who used sex to manipulate people and had an abnormal need to lie and deceive people close to them. However, it was not used as an excuse.
Posted by: grc at August 08, 2008 11:52 AM (lMPRu)
1. Liz Edwards IS involved in this story INEXTRICABLY - she's married to the philanderer in question.
2. John Edwards is a hypocrite (not just because of this), and a public figure VERY recently rumored to be on the 'short list' for VP, AG, or some other Cabinet Post of the UNITED STATES, so his character is also INEXTRICABLY involved in this case and is in point of fact the subject of it!
3. John Edwards is a LIAR
4. Liz Edwards has sheltered and enabled a LIAR and has been complicit in his lies - I do not believe she didn't know ANYTHING about this round of cheating.
5. Liz Edwards was afforded enough media protection/cheerleading when she injected herself into the primary process. The spouses of political figures should stay clear of the political machinations of their significant others if they want to stay out of the limelight. I personally don't suffer them any of my brain power, and that includes the First Lady. Being married to a politician does NOT entitle you to their pulpit.
6. The Brontosaur Media EXPLICITLY, KNOWINGLY, DELIBERATELY buried this story for PARTISAN (Democrat) reasons - under classic self-righteousness, laughable moral superiority, and faux 'concern' that they don't show for the personal lives of Republicans on balance.
7. John Edwards is a slimeball of quite high magnitude. 'No I didn't pay her to keep her yap shut, but I don't know, maybe someone else did.' Indeed. 'But I didn't love her; it didn't mean anything!' *Yawn* 'Elizabeth didn't know about that visit.' Uh huh, but it doesn't mean she didn't know about him seeing her. 'I voted against the affair before I voted for the affair.' Wait, I might be confusing two different things.
Narcissism always ends the same way. I speak of the narcissism of John Edwards, and of the Brontosaur Media. Your stink is ubiquitous.
Posted by: ajs at August 08, 2008 11:53 AM (ZCW2j)
Jackstraw...
You are absolutely right about the irony of this all. But why go and sully yourself over it, when on its face, the whole thing is a disgusting mess.
I don't think that people need any help understanding that John Edwards is a dirtball.
But dwelling on it and crowing about it is perverse. It's exactly what I hate about how the left plays politics. It's filthy and low and dishonorable.
Posted by: oops at August 08, 2008 11:55 AM (TBoxe)
Damn, with all these itewms about "Ahem... time is running out Silky: only 9 days until the convention (hint, hint)." the MSM has been excreting for the last few days, you'd have thought somebody would have predicted a Friday-afternoon blockbuster, timed to hit right after Rush went away for the weekend?
We must really be the stupid party, because they just keep pulling this shit, and we keep getting surprised by it. Imagine if someone on (say) a Conservative Blog of the Year had gone public with the prediction (say) on Wednesday? Wouldn't that have put the Silky One's nuts in a vice? Okay, in a needle-nose pliers, anyway.
Posted by: sherlock at August 08, 2008 11:57 AM (h6sl7)
Really? Well, your explanation of this one should be interesting.
Actually, I only tend to pick on commenters I feel are dishonest or disingenuous. Make of that what you will.
Posted by: Slublog at August 08, 2008 11:59 AM (R8+nJ)
Posted by: grc at August 08, 2008 11:59 AM (lMPRu)
Good news: NRO's The Corner has lifted the embargo on the story. Guess it isn't "trash" anymore.
Posted by: g Hussein p at August 08, 2008 04:00 PM (B9rV2)
Byron York at The Corner has been discussing the story and its embargo for days, since July 31, to be exact.
So fuck you and the snark you rode in on.
Posted by: fulldroolcup at August 08, 2008 12:00 PM (4JvGP)
oops-
This is a blog. A place to comment on news and things of interest to the public.
When one of the top 3 ultra-liberals for the Dem nomination is exposed as a hypocrite, a liar, a scumbag..pick your poison, and it is obvious that the MSM has been trying to bury this explosive story rather than report on it as they would have had it been a Republican, it is both news and interesting to me at least.
If it's not to you, perhaps you should find something else to comment on rather than trying to tell others what they should and shouldn't be interested in or how to comport themselves. If people want to think less of me for how I react to this story they are welcome to. But you are not going to shame me into reacting the way you want me to.
Posted by: JackStraw at August 08, 2008 12:04 PM (VBon8)
This story has been out for MONTHS. Ace (and everyone else in the blogosphere) was talking about this in Dec 07.
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at August 08, 2008 12:08 PM (Ds4I5)
Personally, I cannot get too outraged about adultery. Not that it is'nt dishonorable, but it just doesn't rise to the level of pure evil, but more like a character flaw.
Pure evil? Maybe not, but when you consider that each time people cheat on their partners, they're potentially exposing them to diseases that could kill them, how can you not call it evil? All evil, regardless of the form it takes, is rooted in selfishness and deciding that a few hours of physical pleasure is more important than the health and well-being of the person you're supposed to cherish above all else is pretty damned selfish.
Posted by: TiredWench at August 08, 2008 12:09 PM (Kx1hM)
Right! I'm of the left because I have a particular moral standard that I am sticking with. I've been reading this blog every day for a long time. And, I tend to be contrary when I post, but on the whole, I agree with what Ace publishes. I just don't feel the need to talk about something that doesn't need fixing.
But if that's what you're all about... then you can have it. You clearly need to be coddled and glad-handed. You value agreement more than argument, which is really bizarre for a politically-engaged person.
But you should consider the possibility that people can have the significantly similar goals and values, but have differences on how best to realize those goals and values both from a moral and a strategic perspective. I just happen to be one of those people who would rather miss a political opportunity, than do something wrong.
It's foolish to banish people who support the things that you support because they disagree on the how. And it is damned horrible to call someone a "leftist" because they come from a different place on the right than you. It is a real deficiency in our side if the whole thing can be boiled down into a consensus-based model of what kinds of sins are tolerable and what aren't. I believe that some things are right and some things are wrong, and I think that this, more than anything, puts me in the conservative camp. Values, principles, thought. These things matter more than the squishy formulations that the left applies to its goal of incremental manipulation towards a society of cattle ordered around by elitist control freaks. Yet, on the blogosphere, moral relativism dominates, even in a "conservative" site.
I'm not a good person all the time. But when I think about something, I occasionally feel moved by my values to speak. Sometimes I'm right... usually I'm wrong... but I don't mean any harm to Ace or the people who post here.
Posted by: oops at August 08, 2008 12:15 PM (TBoxe)
Every feminist in the world would love to have sex with Edwards
Not this one. I'd rather eat eight gallons of rancid chili than see Edwards nekkid, nevermind play Big Lawyer and the Naughty Court Reporter with him.
Posted by: TiredWench at August 08, 2008 12:18 PM (Kx1hM)
I'm no doctor, but considering that chemo and radiation suppress one's immune system, an average garden variety std may have a more adverse effect on someone with cancer.
Posted by: grc at August 08, 2008 12:20 PM (lMPRu)
But, yeah, I'll say that you've won the argument with me. I will stop reading Ace of Spades, forwarding stories to friends, and commenting on stuff (not that Ace needs to worry about his readership). No need for me to stick my nose where it is not welcome. I'll shake the dust off my sandals...
Posted by: oops at August 08, 2008 12:20 PM (TBoxe)
Please...cheaters are cheaters, male or female. Cheaters are scum when the potential for it to make the 5:00 o'clock news is there and cheaters deserve nothing less than scorn when their spouse is dying of cancer and is "no longer attractive" to the other spouse. Don't do Johnny anymore favors. If he is using your devil's advocate excuses, I can tell you right now, it won't work with women and married men. Because if a married man admitted that is how they felt to his spouse, he would have to sleep with one eye open. If you know what I mean, and I think you know what I mean.
Cheers,
Sue
Posted by: Sue at August 08, 2008 12:22 PM (Jol77)
Nice speech, oops.
*golf claps*
I've been reading you for a long time here *cough* MOBY! *cough*
Posted by: Warden at August 08, 2008 12:25 PM (QoR4a)
I just know, that as angry as I was with my own dad, I would never tolerate anyone, much less a stranger trying to use the situation to their advantage, badmouthing him or my mom without throwing some punches.
It's our family's problem, nobody elses.
Unless your dad were to, say, run for the office of president. Then it becomes our concern as well. It appears that Edwards was carrying on an affair and had a lovechild during his presidential campaign. This points to a lack of self-control and nearly terminal bad judgement, which ought to be disqualifying traits for someone who wants to be president.
Posted by: Maetenloch at August 08, 2008 12:33 PM (hn7Rm)
oops need to get back on her meds.
Question, oh one who has personally affected by a cheater, should Liz move out?
Or is this just a boy thing?
Does that make her an enabler?
If not why not?
Take your meds and try to figure this out. Edwards and all his "friends" who have been paying off this whore are scumbags, as is the womyn.
This is not hard to figure out for those in the real world, try to rejoin us.
Posted by: kempermanx at August 08, 2008 12:35 PM (ANRVq)
An individual who pretends to channel a dead child for a jury in order to add to their wealth is probably willing to do anything to serve their selfish appetites.
Posted by: DCox at August 08, 2008 12:50 PM (2pT9a)
If he is using your devil's advocate excuses, I can tell you right now, it won't work with women and married men. Because if a married man admitted that is how they felt to his spouse, he would have to sleep with one eye open. If you know what I mean, and I think you know what I mean.
Cheers,
Sue
Well no shit a married man isn't going to admit thinking in such a way to his spouse. "Honey, I'm going to the bar to pick up some broad and fuck her. Why? Well, you stopped putting out two months ago, plus you've gained 50 pounds in the past year. Have breakfast ready when I get back. Love you, bye!"
There are right now millions of married men who do think like that, even if they'd never admit it.
I'm not excusing what Edwards or anyone else that's cheated- only pointing out that perhaps he cheated on Elizabeth not in spite of her illness, but in part because of it.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at August 08, 2008 12:54 PM (plsiE)
Posted by: Sarahw at August 08, 2008 01:02 PM (7sl9X)
Cheating on your spouse when they are sick, or worse, because they are sick, is the ultimate betrayal of faithfulness to a spouse.
He's a piss poor excuse of a human being, let alone a man.
And if that isn't bad enough, he's denied his own kid. Test of character = FAIL.
I agree. However, would you agree that a husband who isn't getting sex from his wife- for whatever reason- is more likely to cheat, wrong though it is?
Posted by: Hollowpoint at August 08, 2008 01:15 PM (plsiE)
Posted by: Sarahw at August 08, 2008 01:17 PM (7sl9X)
Posted by: Sarahw at August 08, 2008 01:24 PM (7sl9X)
Posted by: Sarahw at August 08, 2008 01:29 PM (7sl9X)
LOL - Jonny may have involved himself in a heterosexual affair, but that still doesn't prove he's a man.
Oh, as to his status as a public figure, isn't he still in this thing, or did he relinquish his pledged delegates and completely bow out?
Posted by: Capt. Obtuse at August 08, 2008 01:34 PM (zAvxs)
I don't wish to gloat, but I do feel a lack of sympathy because I think you're leaping to conclusions in assuming she's living through a nightmare right now. Again, **if the part of Elizabeth knowing is true**, you're leaping to conclusions in assuming she's even upset. **If** this is the case: a faithful husband wasn't her priority - public and political prominence was -- when the two conflicted, when insisting on faithfulness in a husband would hurt her future prominence, she went with what she valued more.
Posted by: AD at August 08, 2008 01:35 PM (8mGNb)
Hollowpoint, speak for yourself.
NO, it isn't an excuse, and I'm not buying "most people are selfish and weak" defense. It's not what a person of character does.
How many times and how much more clearly do I have to say that I'm not excusing what he did and that it was a dishonorable thing to do?
Do you disagree that a man who isn't getting sex at home (even if due to his wife's cancer) is more likely to cheat? Or that tens of millions of men in US alone have cheated when they weren't getting any from their wife?
Again, to be perfectly fucking clear- cheating is wrong. Period. Even if they weren't getting sex from their spouse, it's still a betrayal and wrong, though not uncommon.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at August 08, 2008 01:39 PM (plsiE)
Do you disagree that a man who isn't getting sex at home (even if due to his wife's cancer) is more likely to cheat?
Yeah, I'm disagreeing that a man would cheat on his dying wife. A male animal might, but no man would.
Posted by: Sue at August 08, 2008 01:59 PM (+osns)
Yeah, I'm disagreeing that a man would cheat on his dying wife. A male animal might, but no man would.
Oh bloody hell- I'm sticking to my original response:
No penis, no valid opinion on the matter.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at August 08, 2008 02:08 PM (plsiE)
And of course, the REAL victim in this sorry affair is the only innocent involved.
Pretty unsettling, imho, and I hope that this child receives the love and support she'll need growing up.
Posted by: irongrampa at August 08, 2008 02:16 PM (N4pK7)
BUT WHAT ABOUT NEWT!!L!L!L!L!L!L!??!?!?!?!
I love my waf, but only when she has cancer, and not when I'm bangin.
Posted by: Rev Dr The Man E Buzz Fucking Fuck Off Fuck at August 08, 2008 02:17 PM (sf4Oe)
Posted by: Stinky Esposito at August 08, 2008 02:23 PM (MMC8r)
"I didn't love her?" Is he out of his freaking gourd?!?!?
Just how pissed off do you think Rielle Hunter is now? If he wanted her to change her name to Chatty Cathy, that was exactly the right way to do it.
Popcorn for everybody!!
Posted by: VKI at August 08, 2008 02:24 PM (xRo/Z)
Posted by: FreakyBoy at August 08, 2008 02:25 PM (4s1it)
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at August 08, 2008 02:27 PM (1hM1d)
I feel very sorry for Mrs Edwards.
I am glad, however, that this scumbag lying shyster bastard's political career is now finished. We shall never hear of him again.
So there really ARE "Two Americas": one, where you're faithful to your dying wife, in sickness and in health, and the other where you see her illness as the green light to get some strange pussy on the side.
Posted by: Jones at August 08, 2008 02:29 PM (VkNlv)
Posted by: Rev Dr The Man E Buzz Fucking Fuck Off Fuck at August 08, 2008 02:34 PM (sf4Oe)
I'd hit it.
Why aren't we talking about the latest gang of five Repubs that's just blew the election for the GOP? Morons.
Posted by: Esteban at August 08, 2008 02:35 PM (X7Ey1)
I did not love that woman....I lusted her....wait...I did not have love with that woman....
Posted by: bubba clinton jr. at August 08, 2008 02:36 PM (5mE91)
So what's Andrew Young getting to be the fall guy?
Posted by: Stinky Esposito at August 08, 2008 02:37 PM (MMC8r)
Posted by: mikeyslaw at August 08, 2008 02:44 PM (QMGr1)
Elizabeth Edwards: "God damn it John, you told me you pulled out, now I am fucking pregnant!"
John Edwards: "Who is this?"
Posted by: uniball at August 08, 2008 02:47 PM (27iEn)
HAH - LIAR BUSTED - CHECK THESE DATES:
Says he banged her while his wife was in remission. Rielle Hunter's egg got fertilized by John Edwards sperm around late May/early June 2006 (based of DOB of Edwards love child 2/07/07).
Elizabeth Edwards did not go into remission until June of 2006.
"Edwards discovered a lump in her breast in October 2004, two weeks before the presidential election (her husband, John, was the Democratic candidate for vice president). <b>After undergoing chemotherapy, the cancer went into remission in June 2006</b>"
http://www.newsweek.com/id/42789
Now he has officially compounded his lies upon lies upon lies. He is finished. And now I really do have sympathy for his wife who is fighting for her life, only to have it dragged through shit because her husband couldn't keep his dick in his pants. Talk about family values John.
Posted by: Enlightened at August 08, 2008 02:48 PM (CHJ2J)
Posted by: mikeyslaw at August 08, 2008 02:56 PM (QMGr1)
Hollowpoint at August 08, 2008 10:40 AM (rf03a)
That's my take on it also. It seems worse to me that he would have an affair while she was in remission.
Posted by: polynikes at August 08, 2008 02:58 PM (m2CN7)
Posted by: spear at August 08, 2008 03:00 PM (LxheY)
Perfect timing of release
Friday in August? Check.
Two weeks b/f convention so enough time for MSM burn out? Check.
O'Bastard going on vaca in HI? Check.
Late in the day release so everyone is going to the beach/mountains/etc? Check
Night of opening ceremonies? Check
Posted by: TMF at August 08, 2008 03:02 PM (+BgNZ)
They scream about how things are bad and we need to take away things form the rich people, that's having a cancer-stricken wife.
But on the other hand, they love money and fetishize personal belongings and money, that is banging the tramp floozy with the mattress strapped to her back.
Two Americas...the Two Americas of the left. The usual hypocrisy seen in Gore and his yachts and Barry and his loudmouth wife's big salaries, same with Jerry Wright, and his huge ass mansion and Porsche.
I love seeing those fucks fuck up.
Posted by: Rev Dr The Man E Buzz Fucking Fuck Off Fuck at August 08, 2008 03:06 PM (sf4Oe)
Posted by: LtE113(mike in chicago) at August 08, 2008 03:09 PM (/L1AV)
The number of Secret Ace Babies that my old college buds are currently supporting without my knowledge runs into at least the high teens, I'm pretty sure.
They just do this stuff for me. Why? I don't know. They're just really, really, really good friends. They're like the most awsomely awesomacious friends in the whole awesome world.
Finally, some recognition. Fortunately, all the children received educations at "training" schools so no tuition payments were advanced.
Posted by: not_steve_in_hb at August 08, 2008 03:16 PM (SsvUp)
She looks too much like Bruce Dern for my tastes.
But she is a blonde, so maybe it's a wash.
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at August 08, 2008 03:27 PM (Ds4I5)
I don't really believe that he would have confessed unless she caught him red-handed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR4PGt9oOto
Posted by: Lipstick at August 08, 2008 04:22 PM (b+nOT)
I wonder what he used as his pick up line? "Hi....my wife...(sob)...has been diagnosed with incurable cancer. So lets go back to your place and fuck!"
Posted by: DngrMse at August 08, 2008 05:00 PM (518mw)
Posted by: Captain Clement at August 08, 2008 06:42 PM (U9h+H)
Posted by: Me at August 08, 2008 07:44 PM (c3H+i)
I thought it interesting that a recent news article about the "other woman" has her sister saying yes, John Edwards, go right ahead and take that paternity test -- as apparently, this sister of the Hunter/other woman does believe it's Edwards' child.
(Also, I heard one tv station claim this "other woman" is originally from FL, and was named "Lisa Druck" or something like that at birth, but changed her name to become an actress.)
Finally, it is funny to me how the current mainstream media coverage of this story keeps saying crap like the reason Edwards "had" to go public NOW was because of all the "pressure" by the National Enquirer -- and MSM. Uh, I think not. I think the pressure came from Elizabeth Edwards (who saw the National Enquirer story), and was reportedly was shocked John Edwards saw this woman last month/July 2008 in a hotel room -- and perhaps threatened to leave him, NOW no longer believing his claims this affair ended long ago in 2006.
To regain the trust of his wife, Elizabether, John Edwards went public. It had nothing to do with MSM, which would have gone on ignoring the National Enquirer forever.
But, Edwards' wife is the one who pressured him; IMO. That's how and why this matter became public.
Posted by: flvoter at August 09, 2008 11:51 AM (PuHU/)
Posted by: Renate at August 10, 2008 08:19 PM (f9XMm)
Posted by: Renate at August 10, 2008 08:22 PM (f9XMm)
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.









