The Shotgun Blog
« Words of Wisdom on Election Day in Ontario | Main | Biased Media »
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
John Edwards Scandal?
So, we have a story which is slowly seeping into public life - rumours of an affair by Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards. Now, naturally, the National Enquirer isn't, in and of itself, sufficent proof of anything - but there's a little more on this. Just for a start, Mickey Kaus seems to be pretty sure of it .
Most of the speculation swirls around a woman named Rielle Hunter (a forty-four year-old filmmaker, formerly named Lisa Druck). A few weeks ago, Sam Stein over at the Huffington Post began asking questions about the odd disappearance of a series of web videos that she directed for the Edwards Campaign - making $114,461 in the process.
All of this is interesting in that it ties back into a brief item that ran on Page Six in the New York Post about a month and a half ago:
WHICH political candidate enjoys visiting New York because he has a girlfriend who lives downtown? The pol tells her he'll marry her when his current wife is out of the picture.
Leaving aside the grim implications of anticipating a moment when "his current wife is out of the picture" - there's this from an interview posted on Ms. Hunter's recently-deleted website ("RH" is Ms. Hunter):
JM: But I'm saying it's more extreme. I'm just curious why...
RH: ...I'm in New York?
JM: I suppose our reasons could overlap. Let me give you an example. Here in New York, a premium is placed on what I do. It's one of the few places in the country where being a writer is respected and admired.
RH: Oh so you're here for the love�for the recognition and the love?
JM: It's not why I'm here. I'm playing devil's advocate. But I like being here more than in LA, partly because in LA what I do is not terribly highly valued. So you tell me what you're doing, and I would think it's not particularly valued here in New York.
RH: What you were just saying is very human. We're naturally going to be drawn to places where we're loved.
Now, obviously, there are a lot of women in New York - and this is nothing more than circumstantial. But, still, it's interesting.
The Enquirer article, which holds back the name of the woman alleged to be involved, mentions that:
"The affair started about 18 months ago," a friend says the woman confessed to her. "When they met at a bar, sparks flew immediately.
Now, of course, there are a lot of politicians and women that this could apply to. But, what's interesting, is in a Newsweek article from last December:
The Webisodes are the brainchild of Rielle Hunter, a filmmaker who met Edwards at a New York bar where Edwards was having a business meeting.
Actually, in view of what's being discussed now, this (from the same article) is probably even more amusing:
In the midst of a short theme sequence that begins each Webisode, the camera lingers over the former senator's behind as he tucks a starched white shirt into his pants.
So, what we have here is circumstantial - but it strikes me as pretty strong.
1) We have rumours of an affair going back sometime. The first public hints appear as far back as August.
2) What circumstantial details we have - New York, meeting in a bar, wife anticipated to be out of the picture - match up here.
3) We have a strange and rushed effort to cover up these entirely innocuous videos - with the Edwards campaign attempting to control access to them.
4) We have a mystery party archiving these videos and then later anonymously releasing them - indicating that someone knew enough about something to decide to keep a copy of these things lying around just in case.
Now, I'll note, I don't think that this has any real bearing on John Edwards ability to be President. I think that John Edwards should't be President because he's a scum-sucking, ambulance chasing fraud and phony, not because he might be cheating on his cancer-stricken wife.
Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on October 10, 2007 in International Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54f097e6f8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference John Edwards Scandal?:
Comments
DR PETER TEIMAN FRANKLIN here,
Hopefully John Edwards does not end up going the same way as Gary Hart.
DR PETER TEIMAN FRANKLIN
Sweden.
Posted by: Hi,DR PETER TEIMAN FRANKLIN | 2007-10-10 8:50:52 PM
Well, people are being quick to blame Hillary for this... I don't think that's the case. I'd finger Obama as a more plausible candidate, since Obama has a lot more to gain from an Edwards collapse than Hillary does.
Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2007-10-10 8:52:30 PM
Sorry ~
It's Her Heinous behind this. This is a typical Clinton tactic - destroy the opposition. When someone tries the same on them, they scream:
That's the politics of personal destruction. THAT'S NOT FAIR!!! We must return to a civil discourse!!
(Oh - and then blame that vast right-wing conspiracy!)
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-10 9:01:19 PM
Why would it be in Hillary Clinton's interest to give the Anyone But Clinton forces within the DNC a single candidate to unite around - and, at that, to leave the candidate who is probably more appealing ot the Democratic base strengthened.
Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2007-10-10 9:03:13 PM
You must be kidding! She made sure that Mark Warner of Virginia withdrew from the race within weeks of declaring, she made sure Evan Bayh didn't dare declare at all, and now Edwards may be as good as gone.
That leaves Barak HUSSEIN Obama - his middle name will be accentuated by her minions. She needs one opponent that she can handily overcome - and he's the fall guy.
The DemoRats are NOT going to support a man who's been a Senator for only 2 years with no other experience outside of Illinois.
And as "tolerant" as they claim to be, they will not run an inexperienced "magic Negro" with a middle name like Hussein to win the White House. Gore & Kerry both failed - and they had better credentials than Osama - I mean Obama.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-10 9:10:07 PM
"Now, I'll note, I don't think that this has any real bearing on John Edwards ability to be President. I think that John Edwards should't be President because he's a scum-sucking, ambulance chasing fraud and phony, not because he might be cheating on his cancer-stricken wife."
But Yoshi, You must admit his hair deserves to be president doesn't it.
Nice choices on the democratic side a world class bitch, almost a Negro and a hair cut.
Posted by: John | 2007-10-10 9:37:16 PM
Anyone who thinks the Clinton crime family is not behind this is screaming naivety.
People who have come up against the Clintons, or have tried to out them, have in some cases died.
This women is not only a bitch, she is a dangerous bitch.
You make a good point John, after stealing defeat out of the hands of victory last election by running a phony medal wearing, load mouthed, anti-war, Viet Nam war protester, with this complete idiot Edwards by his side, the dems have learned nothing.
Any kind of moderate, common sense democrat would be elected in a heart beat.
Instead they send up this shrieking, socialist bitch who wants to defy the constitution and nationalize everything in site, and the other candidates are even father left and more radical than her!
It defies imagination these people could be elected. Simply unbelievable.
Posted by: deepblue | 2007-10-10 10:37:43 PM
wow gold
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
World Of Warcraft power leveling
World Of Warcraft power leveling
World Of Warcraft power leveling
World Of Warcraft powerleveling
World Of Warcraft powerleveling
World Of Warcraft powerleveling
wow power level
wow power level
wow power level
cheap wow power leveling
cheap wow power leveling
cheap wow powerleveling
cheap wow powerleveling
魔兽代练
codeheart article
wow gold Aggramar
wow gold Aegwynn
wow gold Agamaggan
wow gold Akama
wow gold Alexstrasza
wow gold Alleria
wow gold Altar of Storms
wow gold Alterac Mountains
Warcraft Gold
World of Warcraft Gold
cheap wow gold
wow gold Aerie'peak
Posted by: wow power leveling | 2007-10-11 2:12:21 AM
"If true, then Edwards is your next Dem pres candidate. Nothing rouses Democrats more than a cheating pretty boy. Clinton did it without shame. Carter was coy about it (I lust in my heart...) Kennedy was the role model for all future Dem pres candidates. Without a good cheating on one's wife tale, no DemoRat male candidate is worth consideration. It is now a standard operating procedure and a must to get the confidence and support of the liberal DemoRat base. Can anyone imagine a DemoRat presidential candidate in the last century that didn't cheat and win? Shrillery must be furious at this double standard. She was once the woman cheated upon and now she gets hammered by cheating competition. Oh what sweet irony."
The kicker will be when Her Heinous's personal scandal emerges. Billybob was overheard at a party saying:
"Hillary's had even more women than I have!"
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-11 7:11:03 AM
Have heard speculation that Hillary will offer Obama a seat on the Supreme Court if a) he drops out of the race and obviously b) she is elected President.
Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2007-10-11 10:46:48 AM
Well, at least hes not gay or a pedophile like the Republicans. Republicans talk family values, but in the end theyre just secret fags and child molesters.
Posted by: newyorkslick | 2007-10-11 12:35:29 PM
Barney Frank is a Republican???
Rep. Studds from Massachusetts boinked a male page and was welcomed back to the House by a standing ovation of all the DemoRats!
Want to talk about Billybob & the rape of Juanita Broderick & the groping of interns & office staff throughout his presidency???
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-11 12:39:04 PM
barney frank isnt a coward. he puts his faggetry right out there in open. but lets talk about Ted haggard, mark foley, glenn murphy, and your big old homo larry craig. all of em talk about wives and family and then go chasing after young boys in airport bathrooms.
id rather have my homos right out in the open where i can see em, than sneaking around in the mensroom.
Posted by: newyorkslick | 2007-10-11 12:51:57 PM
You can have your fags in your bedroom for all I care.
Now, when the Clintons sell rocket technology to Red China for campaign contribution, that's an issue that ought to get national coverage.
And the DemoRat State legislator from South Dakota who this week was revealed to have boinked a page WITHOUT coming out like your hero Barney Frank - that story didn't make much news in the Leftoid media, did it.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-11 12:56:52 PM
You are a pretty horrible person for trolling this crap out there without a shred of actual evidence.
National Enquirer is your source? You're a joke.
Posted by: jim | 2007-10-11 1:26:04 PM
National Review picked it up today, too. If the Leftoid press was not so biased, they'd have reporters investigating this as thoroughly as the non-story of Larry Craig in a men's washroom.
BTW, the National Enquirer is owned by Clintonoids - so don't disparage such a solid "journal". Their lawyer defended Billybob in his sexcapade trials too.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-11 1:30:48 PM
Big money is behind the attack on Edwards. Same tactics they used to go after Clinton when he started to back off free trade policies for the sake of food safety. Big money is terrified of Edwards.
And it is a prominent Republican that is a wife-hopper. Remember that other one that totally dumped a wife when she got cancer? And, yes, for some reason Repulicans are the party of choice for fake hetero's.
Also, Edwards is the only candidate besides Ron Paul that has taken an interest in pet food safety after that massive poisoning of American cats and dogs this year.
http://www.johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20070803-unsafe-trade/index.html
Check it out. The other candidates are too high and mighty to care about pets or little kids with broken hearts.
Posted by: Perspective | 2007-10-12 6:31:04 PM
newyorkslickm must have missed this story:
And here's a story you won't find in the media because (gasp!) it involves a DemoRat & not a Republican:
"Page Sues S.D. Lawmaker, Alleges Groping"
FORT PIERRE, South Dakota (al-AP)
A former legislative page sued a state senator Tuesday alleging he fondled him in a motel room they shared last year.
Austin Wiese, who was 18 at the time, seeks at least $250,000 in actual damages plus punitive damages from Dan Sutton, a Democrat who was publicly reprimanded by the South Dakota Senate in January after the allegations arose.
Following lengthy hearings, senators said the charges were never proven but that censure was appropriate because Sutton admitted he had shared a motel bed with the young man. No criminal charges have been filed.
Sutton, 37, did not immediately respond to telephone messages seeking comment Tuesday, but he denied the allegations during the Senate investigation earlier this year. "I didn't do what Austin is claiming that I did," he said then.
Wiese's lawsuit says he has suffered mental anguish, shame, indignity, embarrassment and other harm because Sutton groped him. The lawsuit alleges Wiese's conduct amounted to two counts of sexual battery and two counts of sexual assault.
The Associated Press generally does not identify people who say they are victims of sexual assault, but Wiese's name was used in a public hearing that was carried live on the Internet, and he and his family have discussed the case in the media.
Sutton invited Wiese, a family friend from their hometown of Flandreau, to share his motel room when the young man was a Senate page during the 2006 legislative session, according to the lawsuit. Sutton and Wiese shared a bed in the room, the lawsuit states.
BUT LAST YEAR'S Foley scandal involved a Republican who emailed some pages suggestively - but never touched them. THAT made headlines, but this creep who groped a page - SILENCE FROM THE DRIVE-BY MEDIA!
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-13 7:50:22 PM
The story has been debunked. The woman involved has outright denied it as has the John Edwards. Even the LA Times pulled the story completely because it had no basis in reality. Right up there with alien love-children with celebrities.
Unfortunately for the writer, there is no story here. Just a bunch of slime that isn't sticking.
Posted by: Josh Medeiros | 2007-10-14 2:17:43 PM
"It's not the truth that matters, but the seriousness of the charge!"
That's what the DemoRats said when they accused President Bush the Elder of flying to Paris and secretly meeting with foreign agents when he was V.P. under Reagan.
Besides, Hillary was just practicing for her presidential run.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-14 2:27:19 PM
"DemoRat"?
"I think that John Edwards should't (sic) be President because he's a scum-sucking, ambulance chasing fraud and phony"?
Man, you righties and neocons will do or say anything to draw attention away from your own party's heartless, pernicious ways and inevitable oncoming collapse. And do you honestly feel that ANYONE running on the right is
a. electable
and/ or
b. a worthy leader?
Now THAT is laughable! Let's just hope that -- win or lose -- Kucinich follows through and has the twin Satans rightfully arrested on inauguration day.
Posted by: Tangento | 2007-10-18 10:27:30 PM
Kucinich? ? ?
Back on your meds, baby.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-19 6:47:16 AM
Yeah, what the hell was I thinking... a President that would actually honor his oath of office, and treat the constitution as something other than his own personal roll of asswipe?
Perish the f-ing THOUGHT!!
Posted by: Tangento | 2007-10-19 9:31:45 PM
Anyone who uses the English language as you do, pimento, is not someone whose opinion I care to take seriously - but I guess beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-20 6:03:32 AM
"Yeah, what the hell was I thinking... a President that would actually honor his oath of office, and treat the constitution as something other than his own personal roll of asswipe?"
There is something almost perversely comical about an a**hat like this quoting the constitution, then professing to support the Democratic party who has shown an absolute contempt for the constitution at every turn.
From trying to take away gun ownership, to socialized medicare, to appointing supreme court judges they know will circumnavigate the constitution, from trying to undermine the president and put troops at risk, the list is endless, the Democrats have nothing but contempt for the constitution and prove it every day.
There once was a time when the socialist, stalinists had to gain power by force, now they know they can count on support, and being voted in by absolute, uninformed leftist a**holes like this.
Frightening.
Posted by: deepblue | 2007-10-20 9:52:43 AM
Deepblue,
I can take you to task on nearly every point, and so I shall.
1. I never "professed to support" the Democratic party. If anything, I am disgusted with these spineless wimps, and am doing everthing in my power to infiltrate and REVITALIZE a floundering party. Let's hear the plan on your side of the fence, eh?
2. I am a member of the NRA, and fully support not only our Second Amendment rights, but ALL of the rights laid out by our forefathers. The difference here is, I will not blindly follow hypocrites and vote for criminals in foolish support of just one or two issues. This is about THE BIG PICTURE.
3. Please define "socialized Medicare".
4. Let's take a good long look at these two quotes from your post:
a. "appointing supreme court judges they know will circumnavigate the constitution"
b. "undermine the president and put troops at risk"
Is the irony (and hypocrisy) clear enough here, or do I need to spell it out?
5. Isms...
a. Socialist? No. We the People? YES.
b. Stalinism: "A form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.) "
Wow, we've just defined Dubya's wet dream!
c. Leftist? No. Radical Middle? YES.
You need to understand that all of this tired rhetoric and the endless barrage of shopworn talking points DOESN'T WORK ANYMORE. The gig is up, and the American people are finally awakening from the two-and-a-half decade long stupor. Watch and wait, as accountability makes its long-awaited comeback.
Posted by: Tangento | 2007-10-22 2:54:19 AM
When I hear comments like,
"you righties and neocons will do or say anything to draw attention away from your own party's heartless, pernicious ways"
or even better,
" And do you honestly feel that ANYONE running on the right is a. electable, and/ or, b. a worthy leader?"
or the topper,
"a President that would actually honor his oath of office, and treat the constitution as something other than his own personal roll of asswipe?"
or to the insane,
"has the twin Satans rightfully arrested on inauguration day."
I know exactly what kind of whacked out moron I am addressing.
And I have neither the time or the inclination to explain your constitution to you, or to explain which party hates the constitution and has spent a lifetime trying to tear it down.
Or to "debate" someone who has their head so far up their ass to be insane, or at best a total disconnect with reality.
There is a side of me that hopes you idiots get your wish and you elect the socialists, led by Hillary, so you can get a real taste of the disaster she will heap upon you, but I know how dangerous that will be to the rest of the world.
At this time in history the last thing we need is spoiled children (which defines the democratic party these days) running anything, much less the most powerful nation in the world.
Witness their total disconnect with reality on the Turkey affair.
It and every other asinine move they make on a daily basis shows then for what they really are.
In short, till you grow up, F off moron
Posted by: deepblue | 2007-10-22 8:59:56 AM
deepblue ~
Come on - tell us what you really feel!
I use the word "feel" when "think" is more appropriate to make the loony Leftoids feel more comfortable.
Posted by: obc | 2007-10-22 9:07:58 AM
"At this time in history the last thing we need is spoiled children"
Yeah, spoiled like the silver spoon-fed kid who's provided with a 'dodge the draft free card', two stolen presidential terms, and showed an uncanny grade school affinity for blowing up frogs?
You:
"an a**hat like this..."
"F off moron"
"uninformed leftist a**holes"
Yeah, I can see that you're quite the debating champ, and it's a damn good thing you're nothing at all like a spoiled child. (hahaha... good laugh there) I'm sure you'll go far with all that skill. Interesting is the fact that you did not address ONE question I raised in my civil and mannered post, and instead took the "I'm WAY smarter than you, so F**K OFF" low road yet again.
And by the way -- please save all of your profound insight and go "explain the constitution" to someone who will actually buy into your twisted ideology.
I'm not even sure why I waste my time here, especially when I seem to be the only one taking a stab at civilized discourse, but WTF...
Posted by: Tangento | 2007-10-22 8:33:08 PM
I`m still waiting for someone somewhere to start the whispering campaign about Hillarys` lesbian obsession , the most notable being a beautiful Indian / Pakistani aide named Huma Abedin from Kalamazoo. It would seem that the fix is truly in for Her Thighness , Hillary , when even GW makes her, his top pick for the nomination . John Kerry served as the useful idiot for the Clinton / Bush alliance , last time and now it`s time for 4 more years of scandal and debauchery with the Arkansas travellers. It`ll soon be time for Bill to drag out the old show Bible and Hillary to bring back the White House china , for the inauguration . Good times are here again.
Posted by: daveh | 2007-11-25 7:21:48 AM
Let me get this straight. Edwards cheated on his sick wife and was planning to leave his wife when she died, and Clinton or Obama is to blame? That's as bad as Edwards coming out of the Senate Intelligence hearing, lying about weapons of mass destruction, and convincing the other Democrats to vote for the war and then saying that he's really anti-war. Edwards supporters are really gullible and messed up.
Posted by: Liberal Blue | 2007-12-22 10:18:54 AM
Right now Ms. Hunter is being kept under wraps, probably doesn't even have internet access. But, why? What is she ashamed of? An out-of-wedlock baby? It's so stupid of her to be kept locked up by her married lover (right....) in a house just a few streets away.
No way is some wife going to let some knocked-up whore of her husband live a few streets away and take food from HER kid's mouths....it just isn't going to happen. Unless, it's just a temporary cover by an Edward's crony until he's the nominee.
If Edward's get the nomination, then that whore's life (and her baby's) isn't worth a plug nickle. I'd even say that Edward's would do anything to make sure that that baby is not born. Ms. Hunter needs to contact a victims rights attorney right now and get independent legal representation.
Just my opinion.
Posted by: Earl | 2007-12-25 10:51:54 AM
Peter Teiman Franklin here,
I wonder what the long-term political fortunes are now for John Edwards?
Peter Teiman Franklin,
Sweden
Posted by: Peter Teiman Franklin | 2008-02-27 7:50:53 PM
Peter Teiman Franklin here,
Possibly John Edwards might play a role in a third-party advisorial role.
Peter Teiman Franklin,
Sweden
Posted by: Peter Teiman Franklin | 2008-02-27 7:53:50 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.