John Edwards

[silktricks]

When he was asked about the baby in the hotel, he actually had the nerve to say that he couldn't remember if there was a baby there or not! When shown the picture of him holding the baby (he was wearing that sweaty blue tee shirt with a huge wet sweat stain down the front, so it was certainly him), he said he couldn't remember if he held a baby or not, or if one was there or not, and that the person in the picture may not be him or was doctored. He's a lawyer, and a damned good one. He knows exactly what he is doing. He is creating reasonable doubt. He is taking the "I can't recall" defense along with the "beyond a reasonable doubt" defense, and I can bet you this: Rielle is covering for him, no doubt in exchange for that large payout that Edwards said that "someone from my campaign may have paid her".

 

Edwards visits her at 2am. He holds and plays with the baby. People with telephoto lenses capture the shot. Two weeks later, he can't remember if there was a baby there, and Rielle refuses DNA testing? If they ended their affair two years ago, why bother with a former mistress and a kid who isn't his?

 

This skeleton will eventually come jumping out. Just like Strom's did.

 

According to what I read he adamantly stated the baby was not his. That he knows no picture was taken of him holding it because it was not there.

 

If (as he claims) he went to meet her because she was threatening blackmail - it seems her best way to "get him" at this point is to refuse a paternity test. If (as he claims) there is no way the child is his, but she wants people to believe it is to continue hurting him - what better way than to refuse a paternity test???

 

Anyway, back to the original questions:::

What does everyone think? Is he just a guy who gave in to temptation, and most guys would do the same if they'd been in his shoes? Or is he really narcissistic? Does he have a "character flaw" as is so often claimed on these boards? Is he a typical CS in your opinion?

I don't know if there is such a thing as a "typcial CS". Is he really narcissistic? He probably has some narcissistic tendencies - I (personally) believe anyone who goes into politics must have a certain degree of feeling they are "special".

 

Do you think he is truly repentant? Do you think he really loves Elizabeth? or is he just trying to save his own political future?

I think he knows that he's already blown his political future, so I doubt that he's trying to save that. Truly repentant? Who knows. Only he can know that for sure - and possibly Elizabeth. I'm sure he's sorry that he did it - why he's sorry is a different question, though.

 

And do you think he will do it again?

Well.... if he's never done it before, then I would bet he won't do it again. If this is one of many - then he'll probably do it again..

 

I liked his policies a lot, and he was my favorite of the final three Democratic hopefuls. I'll also add that I must be one of a very few people in America who doesn't think infidelity should have anything to do with whether or not a person makes a good politician, in any office including President. Politics brings out the worst in people IMO, and I think oftentimes a good politician, even a great politician is not a good person - and probably a fairly crappy spouse.

 

But, since it's obvious that American's have a weird belief that infidelity for some reason should prevent a person from running for office - and since Edwards would have to be a dunce not to know that - it really ticks me off that he went ahead and ran for president knowing this was waiting in the wings to blow up. THAT shows a decided lack of judgement and probably reinforces the narcissistic image.

[LucreziaBorgia]

His reaction during the ABC interview when asked about the pictures of him at the hotel and holding the baby were priceless. His responses were downright oily:

 

WOODRUFF: And that picture is absolutely you and you are holding that baby.

 

EDWARDS: The picture in the tabloid. I have no idea what that picture is.

 

EDWARDS: I did see it and I cannot make any sense out of that. When I went to this meeting you've already asked me about, uh, I was not wearing a t-shirt, I was wearing a long-sleeved shirt with the sleeves rolled up. I don't know who that picture -- I don't know if that picture is me, it could well be, it looks like me. I don't know who that baby is, I have no idea what that picture is.

 

WOODRUFF: But are you saying you don't remember holding that child of Miss Hunter?

 

EDWARDS: I'm saying you asked me about this photograph, I don't know anything about that photograph, I don't know who that baby is. I don't know if the picture has been altered, manufactured, if it's a picture of me taken some other time, holding another baby -- I have no idea. * I was not at this meeting holding a child for my photograph to be taken I can tell you that.

 

WOODRUFF: But you don't remember a baby being there?

 

EDWARDS: No.

 

He is a very accomplished trial lawyer. He has carefully worded what he has said so that he isn't saying a definitive "no, that isn't me and the pictures are faked". He knows he can't do that, for the same reason he can't and won't sue the Enquirer for defamation for publishing those supposed 'fake' photographs.

 

Instead of denying it, he is giving the old "lack of memory" defense that has protected countless politicos. You can't call it a lie if he says he 'can't remember', and he knows that. He never said "there was no baby and the pictures are fake" - he has only opined on it, and given very subjective answers based on his 'memory'. He's shrewd. People here in our state have known that for a long time.

 

* Note he didn't say "I was not at this meeting holding a child". He said "I was not at this meeting holding a child for my photograph to be taken.

 

He knows that the people who support him will hear what they want to hear, and what he wants them to hear sounds plausible. What he is failing to see is that people can look through those words and see what he isn't saying.

[grogster]

Breaking news from the National Enquirer web site. And I quote:

 

"The ENQUIRER has uncovered bombshell new details about the John Edwards sex scandal after the former presidential candidate finally admitted he'd cheated on his stricken wife Elizabeth!

 

Edwards' headline-making admission confirmed The ENQUIRER's world exclusive reports detailing his affair, in articles Edwards brazenly called "completely untrue" and "tabloid trash" while running for president and afterward.

 

And now The ENQUIRER has uncovered that Edwards' political operatives are still paying his mistress Rielle Hunter - and she was whisked away on a private jet two days before he confessed their extramarital affair on national TV!

 

The ENQUIRER has also confirmed that Edwards secretly visited Rielle and their love child three separate times at the Beverly Hilton hotel in Los Angeles this year - a fact that proves he is still lying to America and his wife.

 

ENQUIRER reporters caught Edwards, 55, making a late-night visit to 44-year-old Rielle and their daughter at the hotel on July 21 - which prompted us to release the first-ever photograph of him with his love child last week.

 

NOW, The ENQUIRER has uncovered more blockbuster information, including:

 

After Edwards confessed the affair to his wife, he restarted it, and was sexually involved with Rielle when she became pregnant.

 

Despite his denials, Edwards WAS aware that his former finance committee chairman, Fred Baron, was funneling money to Rielle.

 

Experts are now calling for a federal investigation into Edwards' use of campaign funds.

 

In an interview with ABC's correspondent Bob Woodruff on Aug. 8, the former North Carolina senator admitted for the first time that he engaged in what he called a "short" extramarital affair with campaign worker Rielle Hunter.

 

 

But Edwards denied he's the father of Rielle's daughter, who was born on Feb. 27, 2008. The ENQUIRER reported last December that Hunter had told close confidantes that he was the father.

 

 

Edwards claimed he ended the affair in 2006, but sources say he restarted the illicit romance after confessing to his wife.

 

Rielle soon became pregnant after the affair was rekindled, say sources.

 

The ongoing ENQUIRER investigation has also confirmed that he has been with Rielle and the baby three times this year in California.

 

"John Edwards is still lying!" a close source told The ENQUIRER.

 

"He lied to his wife Elizabeth, he's lying to Rielle and he lied all the way through his TV interview!"

 

 

And I say: The man is pond scum.

[almost famous]

See, people, women can have babies into their 40's.

[Touche]

See, people, women can have babies into their 40's.

 

Yes, but why would anyone want to?

[almost famous]

If they want a child???? If they haven't had any yet and just found the man they want to with? Happens all the time, Brooke Shields was 40.

Just because it is not your experience, doesn't mean that other women don't want children who happen to be older.

[Touche]

It's selfish to have a baby when you're as old as this home wrecker.

[45Reverse]

It just hit the news. John Edwards admitted that he cheated on his W in 2006. I just read his "statement to the press"... it seems very defensive, although he points the finger to his own narcissism as a result of campaigning ("I started to think I was special" or something to that effect).

 

What does everyone think? Is he just a guy who gave in to temptation, and most guys would do the same if they'd been in his shoes? Or is he really narcissistic? Does he have a "character flaw" as is so often claimed on these boards? Is he a typical CS in your opinion?

 

Do you think he is truly repentant? Do you think he really loves Elizabeth? or is he just trying to save his own political future?

 

And do you think he will do it again?

 

He has a character flaw...It's called Left Wing Liberal Elite-ism.

[MrsHellnofires]

If they want a child???? If they haven't had any yet and just found the man they want to with? Happens all the time, Brooke Shields was 40.

Just because it is not your experience, doesn't mean that other women don't want children who happen to be older.

 

This homewrecker found "the man"? Well, as far as we know, this woman does not have a husband and second, the child might have a father who is married to someone else! LOL! Ok then!! I can care less about old bag homewreckers who want to have kids one foot into the grave and their cheating lovers! This woman is a selfish jerk and it is apparent in many ways - have an affair with a married man, get knocked up even if the child has no father in sight and possibly getting knocked up by a married man- ME ME ME ME- cant teach a selfish old dog new tricks. I have no sympathy for her whatsoever- shes a homewrecker LOSER who has been afforded RICH houses and areas to live in by Edwards campaign to keep her mouth shut. \

[LucreziaBorgia]

Did anyone catch Pigeon O'Brien's interview? I'm not surprised at anything she said really. The hole just keeps getting deeper and deeper for Edwards, that's for sure.

[mental_traveller]

AFAIK this affair happened a couple of years ago, before his wife got diagnosed with cancer. So if this is the case, then he's scummy but not quite as bad as some of you are assuming. Then again, maybe he's lying about that too!

[LucreziaBorgia]

Elizabeth was dx with BC in 2004, and one of their children was killed in a car accident in 2006. Apparently, Edward's affair started just before his son was killed, and continued for a lot longer than he is letting on.

 

To me the affair isn't even the scummiest part. It is the oily deflection and word origami that he is trying to play that infuriates me. He's like a slippery eel, sliding his way through with carefully worded half truths.

[OpenBook]

Elizabeth was dx with BC in 2004, and one of their children was killed in a car accident in 2006. Apparently, Edward's affair started just before his son was killed, and continued for a lot longer than he is letting on.

 

To me the affair isn't even the scummiest part. It is the oily deflection and word origami that he is trying to play that infuriates me. He's like a slippery eel, sliding his way through with carefully worded half truths.

 

And this is the man Elizabeth loves. I will never understand. Of course, none of us are seeing the entire picture. But still. Apparently he was sufficiently remorseful for her to take him back, and even stand by him and defend him. I wonder if he tries the oil slicks on her. I wonder if she sees right through it all, and calls him on it. Maybe it was easier to forgive him because the A was meaningless to him (or was it?). Maybe they're staying together because at this point in their M, other things far outweigh being sexually faithful. There's so much we'll never know.

[Woggle]

I saw the OW and I can't believe he hurt his family over that? If he was going to cheat can't he have better standards?

[LucreziaBorgia]

1. I wonder if he tries the oil slicks on her. I wonder if she sees right through it all, and calls him on it.

 

2. Maybe they're staying together because at this point in their M, other things far outweigh being sexually faithful. There's so much we'll never know.

 

1. I'm sure he does, and I'm certain she does see through it. She is a smart lady and has been with him for a long time. Then again, he may well have told her everything, but they agreed to keep it on the down low. You never know. It could be to protect their family unit in the short time Elizabeth has left.

 

2. Having been through a lesser case than Elizabeth's I can attest for this. Some things are more important than affairs. People tend to have different priorities when they do a dance with death like that. It is likely that even though it is painful for Elizabeth, it is probably insignificant compared to what she has already been through physically and emotionally. I know that at this point for myself, stuff like that is peanuts. I can only imagine since Elizabeth is far worse off than I am that it is even smaller than peanuts to her. I don't reckon we'll ever really know. I suspect that knowledge is something she will take with her when she passes.

[grogster]

While I understand that an affair can be "small peanuts" to a terminally ill betrayed spouse, why did Elizabeth, with knowledge of the affair, champion her husband as the most moral and feminist of men during Edwards failed run for nomination?

 

She sat back and watched her husband--who had just exited an affair--run for his party's nomination while the lech pretended to be more moral than thou. Heck, she not only watched, she participated vigorously in the campaign and sat right next to him while he blathered about the importance of private moral fitness for public office.

 

In short, Elizabeth participated in the massive consumer fraud that was the Edwards campaign.

 

One can only speculate as to her motivations.

[OpenBook]

She sat back and watched her husband--who had just exited an affair--run for his party's nomination while the lech pretended to be more moral than thou. Heck, she not only watched, she participated vigorously in the campaign and sat right next to him while he blathered about the importance of private moral fitness for public office.

 

In short, Elizabeth participated in the massive consumer fraud that was the Edwards campaign.

 

Maybe it's the "Hillary's Choice" thing. (I didn't read the book, but my understanding is it's about picking your battles, weighing everything out - and accepting everything about your partner, good and bad.)

 

Maybe the good in him outweighs the bad, in her mind. We're all a mix of good and bad, blueblood and mongrel. Are we asking too much to demand otherwise from our political leaders?

[sunshinegirl]

It's selfish to have a baby when you're as old as this home wrecker.

 

Is this a blanket statement about all women who have babies into their 40s, or are you homing in on the homewrecker aspect?

 

If the former, I'm offended by your judgmentalism. I'm 34 and have no idea when I'll meet the right guy and have a chance to start a family. It could be when I'm close to, or beyond 40. What's it to you if I decide to start a family then? I'm very healthy, active, in good physical shape, and am regularly thought to be 5-10 years younger than I am. What exactly is selfish about having a child in that age range? How do peoples' motivations for having children have anything to do with their ages in the first place?

 

If I've overreacted to what you intended to say, you can ignore the above.

[LucreziaBorgia]

She sat back and watched her husband--who had just exited an affair--run for his party's nomination while the lech pretended to be more moral than thou. Heck, she not only watched, she participated vigorously in the campaign and sat right next to him while he blathered about the importance of private moral fitness for public office.

 

In short, Elizabeth participated in the massive consumer fraud that was the Edwards campaign.

 

 

I can't imagine that it was too easy for her to do that.

[grogster]

I can't imagine that it was too easy for her to do that.

 

I can't either. By all appearances, Elizabeth is a very bright woman with integrity. That's why I'm scratching my dead as to why she took such an active role in her cheating husband's ill fated campaign.

 

One day I'll author a book and title it: When Good Wives Happen to Bad Husbands.

[silktricks]

Elizabeth was dx with BC in 2004, and one of their children was killed in a car accident in 2006. Apparently, Edward's affair started just before his son was killed, and continued for a lot longer than he is letting on.

I thought their son was killed in 1996.

 

To me the affair isn't even the scummiest part. It is the oily deflection and word origami that he is trying to play that infuriates me. He's like a slippery eel, sliding his way through with carefully worded half truths.

It's obvious that you can't stand him - but unless you live in his skin - you really don't know that what he's saying are "carefully worded half truths" or not . Now, I'm not saying I disagree with you, but it's just as important for accusers to be accurate as anyone else...

 

I'm completely PO'd at both of them for allowing the presidential bid to go on KNOWING that this was back there just waiting to jump out and bite 'em.

[LucreziaBorgia]

I thought their son was killed in 1996.

 

It's obvious that you can't stand him - but unless you live in his skin - you really don't know that what he's saying are "carefully worded half truths" or not . Now, I'm not saying I disagree with you, but it's just as important for accusers to be accurate as anyone else...

 

I'm completely PO'd at both of them for allowing the presidential bid to go on KNOWING that this was back there just waiting to jump out and bite 'em.

 

Yeah, that 2006 was a misprint on my part and I couldn't edit it in time. Its not that I can't stand him. I actually supported him along with a lot of other people in our state. His 'half truths' are straight from the transcript of his interview and what I based that on. From reading it, particularly the part that wasn't aired it is easy to see his verbal sidestepping. He never gave a straight answer. Only ones meant to create reasonable doubt. He's a lawyer. He knows what he is doing. The more of the story that leaks out, the more obvious it is what he is doing.

[silktricks]

I can't either. By all appearances, Elizabeth is a very bright woman with integrity. That's why I'm scratching my dead as to why she took such an active role in her cheating husband's ill fated campaign.

 

One day I'll author a book and title it: When Good Wives Happen to Bad Husbands.

 

Of course, there's the very real possibility that he DIDN'T tell Elizabeth in 2006, but rather told her in the spring of 2008..... I sincerely doubt she'd come out and say - "You liar, you didn't tell me until this year!!"

 

IMO that's a more likely scenario, as that's when he dropped out of the race and her replies to the media became rather subdued. I always liked Elizabeth and frankly prefer that possibility as she is not then part of the idiocy of thinking something like this can be hid in the heat of a presidential bid. But - just because I like her doesn't mean she's not as duplicitous (and stupid in some ways) as her husband .

[grogster]

Of course, there's the very real possibility that he DIDN'T tell Elizabeth in 2006, but rather told her in the spring of 2008..... I sincerely doubt she'd come out and say - "You liar, you didn't tell me until this year!!"

 

IMO that's a more likely scenario, as that's when he dropped out of the race and her replies to the media became rather subdued. I always liked Elizabeth and frankly prefer that possibility as she is not then part of the idiocy of thinking something like this can be hid in the heat of a presidential bid. But - just because I like her doesn't mean she's not as duplicitous (and stupid in some ways) as her husband .

 

Good points, stilltricks. I'm accepting as true the lying knave's claim that he confessed in 2006. More likely than not, he made some limited confession.

 

I suspect after the confession the physical affair went into hiatus and, sometime in 2007, the lovebirds started sexing it up, again. And, surprise, John never tells Elizabeth about the affair's sexual resumption. And that's when good old boy John knocks up the OW.

 

Affairs often do not end merely because the betrayed spouse learns of the infidelity. Like two crazed, hyper-hormonal kids, the two affair-birds (who are otherwise rational adults) stay clenched and hunkered down against the world. I suspect that's what occurred, here.

 

John Edwards is lying.

[silktricks]

His 'half truths' are straight from the transcript of his interview and what I based that on. From reading it, particularly the part that wasn't aired it is easy to see his verbal sidestepping. He never gave a straight answer. Only ones meant to create reasonable doubt. He's a lawyer.

 

Believe me, I didn't mean that he was being straight - just that if we don't know what the truth really is - then we can't know if something is a "half truth" or not. It could be anywhere on the scale from 0 to 100. (Like you, though, I sincerely doubt that his answers are at the 100 level ).

 

But - I will say again - I really do not understand the American idea that infidelity means a person would then be a bad president (or senator or whatever). What does one have to do with the other? I don't get it!!!