News-Record.com

This story matters most to the sexually repressed.

The woman in question insists the child does not belong to Edwards. The man who claims to be the father has said he'd liked to be left alone since his family is trying to heal.

These details along with the fact that Edwards doesn't have a job to lose because of it render this story moot.

There are more important things in the world to worry about than who is sleeping with whom.

For the sake of argument let's say that there was a reason why perrenial presidential candidate John Edwards was visiting Ms. Hunter in the wee hours and running down basement stairs and into a mens room to avoid being spotted.....and that the reason is that he fathered a child with Ms. Hunter. Doesn't this make him the world's smarmiest liar? A misogynist? How would Ms. Hunter feel, being handled by Edwards' people, being forced to deny the true paternity for the sake of the snake she loved? How does she feel being the brunt of rumors? If this story weren't true, Edwards would have to do a lot more than he's doing to defend Ms. Hunter's honor. Then there's Mrs. Edwards, the campaign prop which the cunning and conniving Mr. Edwards used so effectively.....the bottom line is that Edwards is acting as if the story IS true and in a way that a candidate with expert handlers would know lends credence to the story. The fact that he thought he could lie his way through the campaign, lie and use two women this way, and lie his way into the white house, shows just how sick this candidate's character is. Edwards gives ambulance chasers and trial lawyers a bad name.

Let's all close our eyes and replace the name "Mitt Romney" or "Karl Rove" with John Edwards. Then - (let's try to be really honest with ourselves) admit - there is a double standard. It is a valid story - this man (Edwards) made his platform decrying the plight of children growing up in the 2nd America without a father. He is a hypocrite on the Eliot Spitzer and Larry Craig level of hypocrisy. He TRIED to be PRESIDENT. It deserves scrutiny. Once again, I suggest you replace his name with Mitt Romney and go from there...

This editorial asks why Edwards does not come forward and talk to the press about this tabloid story. Maybe he remembers what happened last year when he openly talked to the press and denied the story, as did the woman and the father of her baby. When Edwards talked to the press, the story was immediately covered by mainstream news organizations because his comments gave them a reason to cover a tabloid story. His response was "news". The increased coverage made more people aware of the tabloid smear, but did little to stop the gossip. People who did not like Edwards for his political views simply moved from "Why doesn't he respond?" to "He's lying!".

The Enquirer story is full of holes. Their sister paper, The Globe, has a cover story about Obama's "Love Child". Our real newspapers should not be covering these tabloid tales. I think the News and Record news department did the right thing in passing on this one.

I saw John Edwards at a press conference the other day. When asked point-blank if the reports were true, he did not deny them. He gave an evasive answer, but he did not say, "No." (He's too smart to say, "I did not have sex with that woman.")
That's a very telling aspect of Edward's treatment of this situation. I wouldn't be surprised if it were true, based on his evasive non-denial answer.

All adults connected with this story seem to be ignoring the baby. With all the technology available this little girl is going to grow up and ask simple questions like what is the first thing daddy said when he saw me? Did he love me? Was he proud of me? And all comments made today will be available. If John Edwards is the father, his first public comments are that stories about this child are "trash". If the stories turn out to be true, and no doubt the truth will be found out, what will this child feel like to be denied as though she were garbage? Is he acting like a father that loves his child? If not, how will this affect the life of this innocent child? I certainly don't know what the truth is, but no doubt it will be known at some point. And when it is, the early statements will become important. So the adults who do know the truth should be careful to tell the truth.

Question for the author of this blog entry.

How did Ted Kennedy respond to The National Enquirer's allegations that he had a love child? If I remember correctly, the "woman" eventually sued the NE, Ted Kennedy did not. Did Kennedy go out making public statements denying it? I don't remember.

The Globe, less credible than even the NE, claims that Obama has a love child.

The NE claims that the Obamas have gotten into yelling matches over Obama's "other women." Should Barack Obama address these allegations?

Why is it just John Edwards who should address the charges?

Because everytime that Edwards is up for any position, the "FAKE SCANDALS" begin, and this is no different. When he was running, his HOUSE, his HAIR, his HEDGE FUND, and his BLOGGERS were all fake scandals.

Well, almost every candidate running was "RICH" and lived in a huge house or had multiple houses. All of them spent a lot of money on PAMPERING. The hedge fund also gave money to Clinton, Obama, Dodd, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. One of those bloggers went to work for Barack Obama.

Why didn't the media talk about all of the other candidates doing the same things they were criticizing Edwards for?

Because everytime that Edwards is up for something, the SMEARS BEGIN, because he's the one, THE TRIAL LAWYER, that the status quo wants to keep out of DC, that's why.

The NE is not the only source.

Why was there no mention of the fact that Fox interviewed the security guard and reported that the guard confirmed that he had shielded Edwards from reporters and escorted him out of the hotel at the time/date specified by the NE?

Or, are folk suggesting that Fox is in collusion with the NE?

Your editorial spends way too much time trying to
discredit the messenger.
If this story didn't have legs, what was Edwards doing in a hotel room with this woman and someone else's baby late at night? That seems to be indisputable, corroborated by the staff.
The reason Edwards is avoiding reporters is not because the story is trash, it's because there is no good way to explain the facts. Once you get to the question why were you in this woman's room if you are not the father and you are not involved with her it's essentially over.
You and the rest of the MSM are sitting on this because Edwards is a Democrat. This is one reason the MSM is losing audience and ad revenue.

Seems like this could be all put to rest simply,quickly and relatively painlessly -- with a blood test.

This says much about the ability of main stream reporters. A simple check with the hotel could verify it all. Oh yes, it has been done by Fox News. It's amazing what the nonbelievers go through just to remain in their dreams.

The story matters because here's a guy that could be appointed to a cabinet or court position. His name was mentioned for the VP position. He's an active Democrat spokeman.

The real question is WHY this story doesn't matter to the MSM for all of the above reasons? It's lame and bogus of them to pretend that it's a private matter or they are shielding his wife when in instances of sexual scandals involving Republicans like Larry Craig or Mark Foley those were never a consideration. It's the typical liberal MSM omitting stories that are at odds with their agenda.

Edwards isn't denying that he was at the hotel. The hotel security employees state he was there. He hasn't called them liars. This is the same hypocrit with his 28200 sq. ft. house that has quilt lectured us on the "two Americas" and the environment without one once of irony about his own ambulance chaser's wealth and carbon foot print. He put himself in front of us last election as a family man above repute. His hypocrisy deserves being outed.

Two prominent N&R muckety-mucks have used the NY Times as their idea of a credible source. That alone should discredit any other opinion they may have.

Perhaps they mean another NY Times, not the one that printed a completely false, unsourced, 3000 word FRONT PAGE article concerning John McCain having an affair with a lobbyist, while trying to bury the Obama/Jeremiah Wright conncection until they were forced to pick up the story once Fox News first broke it.

The News and Record publishes hurtful, unsubstantiated innuendos, disguised as an editorial wondering how seriously one should take the
rumors. Just for the record...how does this make the News and Record and the Enquirer all that
different?

Hey "penny" -

Fox substantiated it.

Also, don't you think that if Edwards could show that he was somewhere else at 2:00 that morning that he would have by now?

It's a difficult situation when facts contradict one's opinion. For example, I believed W Clinton until the fact of the blue dress (and DNA test) made him admit the stories were true. Eventually, I was able to accept that he had betrayed my trust.

Good luck with you and Edwards.

You point out that story would have much more cred if it came from the New York Times, or the Washington Post. Well, when one Rev. Jesse Jackson was revealed to have fathered a child out of wedlock, which paper broke the story? The National Enquirer. And it was only when Jackson finally came forward and admitted it, did the Times and Post finally report it, with the Times burrying it on page 26. Of course the Times ran a front page on a totally concocted acusatation of a John Mc Cain 'affair' with zero evidence of anything. So, conclusion? If you want the real news, not the slanted, one sided news of the left, read the Enquirer. My money is on this story being just as dead on as the Jesse Jackson story was.

jim--
Actually, I am not an Edward's fan and I would not have voted for him. I am not surprised/disappointed
if this story happens to be true. My issue is with the
N&R's handling of this type and level of information.

penny -

What you said originally:

"The News and Record publishes hurtful, unsubstantiated innuendos, disguised as an editorial wondering how seriously one should take the rumors."

What you said next:

"My issue is with the N&R's handling of this type and level of information."

If what N&R published was substantiated (and it was by Fox), how can either of your posted statements be valid?

If the editorial was not "unsubstantiated innuendos" (and it was not), then Edwards' subsequent actions and non-denials must be fair game. What then can be the basis for your "handling and level of information" "issue"?

Penny, Jason, hegotgenius, and Betty: try looking at Drudge this morning and you'll see your hero with his new heir. And you just might want to buy the NE instead of your NewYorkTimes to get the whole story.

Penny, Jason, hegotgenius, and Betty: try looking at Drudge this morning and you'll see your hero with his new heir. And you just might want to buy the NE instead of your NewYorkTimes to get the whole story.

Penny, Jason, hegotgenius, and Betty: try looking at Drudge this morning and you'll see your hero with his new heir. And you just might want to buy the NE instead of your NewYorkTimes to get the whole story.

When I originally read the editorial in the actual
newspaper, there was no mention of substantiation by FOX. Just the Enquirer was mentioned.

jim,
I was referring to the newspaper editorial--sorry I did not make that clearer.

And, if you held my fingers to the fire, I'm not so sure I would say that blog editorials should have the same standards as print. That would be an interesting discussion. In other words, I don't have issues with the discussion on this blog.

Personally, I don't care to speculate about John Edwards--I don't really care if he's in another relationship. That's between him and his wife, in my opinion. That's where the heavy price for philandering is paid--not necessarily in the media.

penny -

Point taken, and I agree with you that the N&R editorial probably should have mentioned the Fox aspect. In fact, that was exactly what I posted here at 11:16 AM.

OTOH, if a candidate (and Edwards still holds 66 delegates) or politician is a liar and/or a scoundrel, voters probably have a right to know that. If the NE/Fox story is true, a good case can be made that Edwards qualifies as both, especially given the denials and worse in 2007.

jim,

Does your knowing that Edwards (or anyone else for that matter) is unfaithful to his wife change anything? It didn't seem to matter on the conservative end when it came to Jesse Helms. The list goes on and on.

When is someone a liar and scoundrel as opposed
to someone who made a incredibly stupid decision?
Which incredibly stupid decisions should be fodder for the newspaper? Should a politician be able to have a private life, questionable as it may be?

Just asking the questions....

penny -

I would assert that it matters most when the revelation conflicts with the core message and/or persona offered by the candidate or politician.

That appears to be the case here, especially when combined with what Edwards said last year on this matter and what appears to have been a vile lie of a cover-up (baby birth certificate, who is supposedly the father, etc.).

Thoughts for your penny said,

"Does your knowing that Edwards (or anyone else for that matter) is unfaithful to his wife change anything? It didn't seem to matter on the conservative end when it came to Jesse Helms."

Jesse Helms -- affair????

When? Who? Where? How?

A legitimate, researchable citation could add credence to your original statement as quoted above.

I screwup big time. Sorry--I meant to say Strom Thurmond. Long day.

Say, can I have my own editor on staff?

Nothing worse--

By the way, I thought you showed admirable restraint in your response to my misspeak, uh, miswrite. Thank you.

jim--

You have a good point.

I just think politicians (and high profile ministers, sport stars etc. etc. etc.) are a different sort of animal. They generally like people and are gregarious. They like power. They like attention. They have a lot of energy. They work long hours or they are out on the road a lot. Those kind of people are going to get into those kind of messes.

I think I tend to be more surprised when a politician
doesn't sleep around. Is that cynical or realistic?
I'm wasn't surprised about Strom and I'm not surprised about Edwards. Most politicians are not knights in shining armor--they're just men (and I am just speaking of men in particular right now--not women--that's a subject for another blog.)

I generally think these kinds of issues should be dealt with privately unless someone has broken the law. The media hunts down celebrities, sports stars and politicans, all for the public's thirst for excitement. What's next? N&R editor? Your neighbor? You?
Where does it all end?

penny -

I agree with you unless, as I said before, the revelation reveals the person to be mis-representing him/herself in an important way.

For example, if my surgeon claimed not to have ever gotten a speeding ticket and that was not true, then it is not a material falsehood and does not affect his competence in, say, repairing my hip joint. However, if it turned out that the surgeon had lied about being an MD, that would be material and important indeed!

Edwards portrayed himself in a certain way and much of his "message" was that he was a respected lawyer and a devoted father and husband: an honest lawyer and family man with children and a lovely wife. His wife's medical situation and the adversities and both her and his bravery were important elements to his appeal. Furthermore, as a lawyer, Edwards is an "Officer of the Court" and has taken certain relevant oaths.

Now, the facts appear to be that he was living a lie, betraying his wife, and even dishonestly orchestrating a cover up in which another man claimed to be the father of a child in his stead.

The point is that he is NOT the man he tried to get voters to believe he was and to vote for, just as my surgeon would not have been a doctor.

It is this difference that makes the story important and more than a "spouse cheats, so what" story.

jim,
You make a convincing argument and I can appreciate and respect your point of view. I am quite content to agree to disagree on this one...at least until you and I become supreme court justices. And then I
think our aides might be running back and forth with
our dissenting opinions in hand!

penny -

Fare thee well!

QUOTE: "As a man who has waged two campaigns for president and might well have been vice president, Edwards should clear the air and set the record straight."

With Sen. McCain having waged two campaigns for president, and might well win this year, McCain should clear the air and set the record straight as to his affair with Cindy while still married to his former wife lying on her death bed, subsequently divorcing her while she was suffering and marrying a trophy wife who is worth $100 million.

Fair is fair.

Kevin -

McCain already did just that, and did it many years ago.

Also, his former wife was not on her death bed, is alive today (nearly 3 decades later), and pretty much forgave him.

Google is your friend.

Also, he did not lie about it, as Edwards today finally admitted he had been doing.