John Edwards' alleged lovechild: would you disqualify him as a VP choice due to this? [Archive]

Sampiro

07-23-2008, 11:42 AM

This is both about John Edwards and a general question.

The National Enquirer ran an article several months ago on Rielle Hunter, an alleged pregnant girlfriend of John Edwards. Nothing has been substantiated and she claims the father is her boyfriend, a member of Edwards staff, but whatever the truth the story is getting increasing currency on blogs and the like. (Here's one (http://www.bloggernews.net/116857)) about an alleged tryst this week.

Obviously I don't know and don't particularly care whether Edwards has a mistress and lovechild (that's twixt him and his wife and the baby's mother), but if you were Obama's campaign manager and if this story moves from tabloids to mainstream, would this be enough to keep you from wanting Edwards as a VP choice? Assume that

1- you were leaning towards Edwards
2- he was interested in the position

so it's as much hypothetical as about this case- do you think that there would be enough public outcry over a VP nominee having an illegitimate child to warrant not including him on the ticket? I'm

Magiver

07-23-2008, 11:53 AM

astorian

07-23-2008, 11:55 AM

Speaking from the right wing...

I never thought John Edwards would bring ANYTHING to the ticket. He proved that in 2004, when he couldn't even deliver a single Southern tate. Not even his home state!

So, if a mini-scandal like this convinces Obama that Edwards is bad news, that's GOOD news for Obama supporters.

*

But let's say that, for whatever reason, Obama thinks Edwards is the cat's pajamas, a brilliant guy, the PERFECT man to take over in the event of Obama's death. Suppose that Obama is hell bent on picking Edwards.

I've already said Edwards can't and won't help Obama, so the question becomes, would this scandal HURT Obama's ticket?

Well, people who love Obama won't give a damn. People who HATE Obama wouldn't vote for him even if his running mate were an ideal family man. What about the people in the middle? Would they overlook an Edwards love child? It depends on how Edwards handled it.

Did Edwards see to it that the child was well provided for? Did he make sure the mother was financially secure? Did he confess all to Mrs. Edwards, and has she forgiven all?

If the answers are yes, yes and yes, I don't think this scandal would taint Edwards too much.

07-23-2008, 11:55 AM

Yeah, I think this would definitely disqualify him (no matter who he was....personally I think Edwards would be a horrible choice regardless of love child or no love child). Obama doesn't need this kind of potential chink in his armor...but even broader, no candidate running for office would relish having a potential VP with this kind of thing potentially hanging over his head.

From a personal issue, like you I think it's between him and his wife and mistress (if it even happened at all)...I could care less. However, realistically it's going to make a huge difference politically with the public.

-XT

John Mace

07-23-2008, 11:57 AM

...if you were Obama's campaign manager and if this story moves from tabloids to mainstream, would this be enough to keep you from wanting Edwards as a VP choice? Assume that

1- you were leaning towards Edwards
2- he was interested in the position

so it's as much hypothetical as about this case- do you think that there would be enough public outcry over a VP nominee having an illegitimate child to warrant not including him on the ticket? I'm
Absolutely. If he had a child out of wedlock and kept it hidden and the press found out, he'd be off my list in an instant.

If he didn't know about it, and only found out when the press did, then I might consider keeping him. But probably not. There are too many other well qualified candidates out there.

astorian

07-23-2008, 11:58 AM

Magiver

07-23-2008, 12:08 PM

I should add, this is a disqualification ONLY for the Vice Presidency. If Obama wants to name Edwards as Attorney General, there would be practically no public outcry, and no opposition in the Senate. I dunno about that. If it were true he would be cheating on a wife who has cancer and gave of herself for his campiagn on what could be her last days on earth. It would look BAAAAADDDD.

Diogenes the Cynic

07-23-2008, 12:10 PM

It's funny how insanely hypocritical the righty-sphere is about this kind of thing. When the NY Times reported that aides were uncomfortable about a relationship John McCain (an admitted serial adulterer) was having with a female lobbyist, they went apopleptic with rage. The National Enquirer accuse John Edwards with no evdidence whatever, and with another man claiming to be the father of the "love child"* and it's accepted as Gospel. The Enquirer has also printed stories accusing GWB of falling off the wagon and alleging that Laura is going to divorce him when they get out of office. I wonder if these same bloggers believe THOSE accusations. I wonder what they would say if the NE accused [i]McCain of having an affair.

Anyway, in response to the OP, I imagine that the Obama campaign will first assertain to a dead certainty whether or not the allegations are true. If it is true, than John Edwards is off the shortlist. He might be anyway. This is the kind of of accustion where it's all but impossible to prove one's innocence. Even if a DNA test shows he's not the father, these bloggers will still say that she was just sleeping with someone else along with Edwards. HNo matter what the truth is, Edwards will probably now always be an adulterer the way Obama will always be a Muslim. Funny that that mcCain's admitted adultery doesn't bother them, though.

*Why do they always call it a "love child?" What's the difference bewteen a "love child" and a regular child?

Sampiro

07-23-2008, 12:16 PM

*Why do they always call it a "love child?" What's the difference bewteen a "love child" and a regular child?

A great Supremes hit.

mlees

07-23-2008, 12:23 PM

"The Cat's Pajama's"? Heh... new one on me.

astorian

07-23-2008, 12:23 PM

I dunno about that. If it were true he would be cheating on a wife who has cancer and gave of herself for his campiagn on what could be her last days on earth. It would look BAAAAADDDD.

Henry Cisneros had a sex scandal of his own while serving as mayor of San Antonio. That didn't hurt him when Bill Clinton made him HUD Secretary.

I don't say it's logical, I just think people are far less likely to get excited about Cabinet members, positively OR negatively.

And... I rarely find myself saying this, but... Diogenes does have a point. We don't KNOW for certain that Edwards has fathered a child by another woman. Until we hear it confirmed, it's idle speculation.

IF it's true, I'd still maintain Edwards is a bad choice for Veep, but could ride out the storm IF he's treated the baby and its mother honorably and generously.

Shodan

07-23-2008, 12:26 PM

The National Enquirer accuse John Edwards with no evdidence whatever, and with another man claiming to be the father of the "love child"* and it's accepted as Gospel.
People who believe what they read in The National Enquirer don't need evidence.

I'm sure I don't need to remind you who those people are.

Regards,
Shodan

Diogenes the Cynic

07-23-2008, 12:27 PM

Did Edwards see to it that the child was well provided for? Did he make sure the mother was financially secure? Did he confess all to Mrs. Edwards, and has she forgiven all?

If the answers are yes, yes and yes, I don't think this scandal would taint Edwards too much.
For the record, this alleged child has not been born yet. The alleged mistress is pregnant, but she's claiming one of Edwards' advisors is the father and that there is no affair.

Diogenes the Cynic

07-23-2008, 12:28 PM

People who believe what they read in The National Enquirer don't need evidence.

I'm sure I don't need to remind you who those people are.

Regards,
Shodan
Republicans?

Sateryn76

07-23-2008, 12:34 PM

For the record, this alleged child has not been born yet. The alleged mistress is pregnant, but she's claiming one of Edwards' advisors is the father and that there is no affair.

It is my understanding that the child has been born. Unless she was pregnant for 11 months.

I wonder if Edwards wil sue the OB into bankruptcy? I've heard it's way easier to channel the thoughts of a baby that shares your DNA. :D

Diogenes the Cynic

07-23-2008, 12:37 PM

It is my understanding that the child has been born. Unless she was pregnant for 11 months.

I wonder if Edwards wil sue the OB into bankruptcy? I've heard it's way easier to channel the thoughts of a baby that shares your DNA. :D
My mistake then. I guess I misread the story somehow.

Shodan

07-23-2008, 12:52 PM

Republicans?
Nope. And it isn't those nasty, gullible right-wingers either.

Regards,
Shodan

PS - As if it were necessary, cite. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6632616&postcount=91)

John Mace

07-23-2008, 12:55 PM

KNBC of LA has picked up the story, although all they're saying is that it was reported by the NE.

Marley23

07-23-2008, 12:56 PM

If it's true, he's Eagleton-level poisonous and will never be chosen. If it's potentially true it's a big strike against him. But the National Enquirer and some blogs? This is not at that level right now. There were rumors of Kerry affair early in the 2004 election, don't forget, and those never went anyplace either.

John Mace

07-23-2008, 12:59 PM

If this stays at the NE level, with legit news sources only quoting that rag, then this story has no effect on Edwards.

RTFirefly

07-23-2008, 01:12 PM

if you were Obama's campaign manager and if this story moves from tabloids to mainstream, would this be enough to keep you from wanting Edwards as a VP choice? Just because a tabloid story went mainstream, I can't see that being enough anymore. The divide between tabloid and mainstream news broke down sometime during the Clinton years. Mainstream news outlets frequently cover stories with nothing to them under the guise of sharing with their readers what's circulating in the world of tabloids/Rush/Drudge.

Now if the story were substantiated by mainstream reportage, he'd immediately be out of the running.

Voyager

07-23-2008, 01:14 PM

You mean the National Enquirer, the most trusted name in news, hasn't retracted yet and named a space alien as father? They can get away with it since suing would be the stupidest thing Edwards could do.

I doubt this would have any impact, assuming it isn't true, which I'm sure it isn't, but Edwards would be a terrible choice in any case.

Mr. Moto

07-23-2008, 01:43 PM

Henry Cisneros had a sex scandal of his own while serving as mayor of San Antonio. That didn't hurt him when Bill Clinton made him HUD Secretary.

Are you misremembering? That sex scandal and the financial chicanery surrounding it led to the appointment of an independent prosecutor, David Barrett. Cisneros left HUD in January, 1997 and was indicted in December of that year.

He eventually agreed to a plea deal and was pardoned by Clinton in his wave of out-the-door pardons. But the sex scandal terminated his tenure in the Cabinet and ended any hope of higher office for him.

So yeah, it hurt.

Sampiro

07-23-2008, 02:02 PM

07-23-2008, 02:05 PM

Both I'd say. And that is a perfect example of how something like this can stick to a candidate (or his VP choice) even when categorically false. I'd say Obama has enough other problems without taking any chances, unless this whole thing is both 100% false AND it gets no traction with the public (those two states not being equal of course).

-XT

Bryan Ekers

07-23-2008, 02:40 PM

The famous incident of McCain's fictitious illegitimate black child (which IIRC the Rove pollsters never actually claimed existed but just asked something to the effect of "How would the knowledge he has an illegitimate black child affect your opinion of him?") is believed by some to have done some damage to his momentum. However, I'm not sure if it was the illegitimacy or the biracial nature of the child that never was which was the biggest culprit.

That particular incident has some weasley overly-literal fourth-in-the-list-of-definitions-at-dictionary.com truth to it, though, which helps when the disingenuity starts after they get called on their bullshit.

Frankly, there are people around here who resort to that, too, but fortunately there isn't a branch of government at stake.

RTFirefly

07-23-2008, 03:21 PM

You mean the National Enquirer, the most trusted name in news, hasn't retracted yet and named a space alien as father? No, that would have been the Weekly World News, the last American tabloid to deal with Bigfoot and space aliens, as opposed to the celeb news that is the staple of the Enquirer and the other remaining tabloids.

Unfortunately, the WWN went out of business several months ago. :(

Der Trihs

07-23-2008, 03:28 PM

An Arky

07-23-2008, 04:27 PM

I should add, this is a disqualification ONLY for the Vice Presidency. If Obama wants to name Edwards as Attorney General, there would be practically no public outcry, and no opposition in the Senate.

I have to differ with you there; I would bet that every single corporate contributor (especially health-related ones) to every single Congressman would be providing a ma$$ive amount of opposition to Edwards being Attorney General.

Which is precisely why I'd like to see him get the job.

SisterCoyote

07-23-2008, 04:36 PM

"Ma, Ma, where's my Pa? Gone to the White House, Ha ha ha."

Election of 1884. No, I don't know that it would affect his chances, particularly since the NE is the source.

Voyager

07-23-2008, 04:43 PM

No, that would have been the Weekly World News, the last American tabloid to deal with Bigfoot and space aliens, as opposed to the celeb news that is the staple of the Enquirer and the other remaining tabloids.

Unfortunately, the WWN went out of business several months ago. :(
I'm badly out of date. The last Enquirer I bought, which was about 40 years ago, had that kind of stuff.

dropzone

07-23-2008, 04:44 PM

I dunno about that. If it were true he would be cheating on a wife who has cancer and gave of herself for his campiagn on what could be her last days on earth. It would look BAAAAADDDD.Yes. Elizabeth Edwards is far more universally liked and respected than her husband. Hounding around behind her back is political suicide.

EddyTeddyFreddy

07-23-2008, 07:16 PM

I dunno about that. If it were true he would be cheating on a wife who has cancer and gave of herself for his campiagn on what could be her last days on earth. It would look BAAAAADDDD.
This is the aspect that would bother me the most, and that would IMO destroy Edwards' viability, surely for VP and perhaps for AG.

E-Sabbath

07-23-2008, 07:48 PM

The National Enquirer actually has a very good reputation for investigative journalism.

Magiver

07-23-2008, 08:23 PM

Yes. Elizabeth Edwards is far more universally liked and respected than her husband. Hounding around behind her back is political suicide. Well that and the whole cancer thing. Can you imagine if she stood beside him at a news conference wearing a chemo do-rag? The reporters would kick the shit out of him. But I repeat my earlier statement that he should go after the paper. He was quite the Don Quixote in his day and did very well at it.

What nobody seems to take note of was the claim that hotel security kept the reporters back until John could escape. Kinda sounds like they were detaining the reporters. If the paper goes after the hotel then it will keep the story afloat a little longer.

Baldwin

07-23-2008, 08:27 PM

Ma, Ma, where's my Pa?

Gone to the White House, ha ha ha.

I voted for Edwards in the primary (early ballot); I'd love to see an Obama/Edwards ticket. No, a love child wouldn't affect that.

Sampiro

07-23-2008, 08:29 PM

What nobody seems to take note of was the claim that hotel security kept the reporters back until John could escape. Kinda sounds like they were detaining the reporters. If the paper goes after the hotel then it will keep the story afloat a little longer.

That would actually be a very easily checked statement. I wonder if any bloggers (or even any reps of actual news agencies) have called the hotel to ask about this.

What the .... ?!?!

07-23-2008, 08:30 PM

I would disqualify the main stream media as fair and balanced though.

This cite is Not Fox News (http://www.slate.com/id/2195869/)

Magiver

07-23-2008, 08:31 PM

Ma, Ma, where's my Pa?

Gone to the White House, ha ha ha.

I voted for Edwards in the primary (early ballot); I'd love to see an Obama/Edwards ticket. No, a love child wouldn't affect that. Oh yah, Obama would want a cancer victim, a mistriss and a bastard chld sucking oxygen out of election day.

Marley23

07-23-2008, 08:36 PM

That would actually be a very easily checked statement. I wonder if any bloggers (or even any reps of actual news agencies) have called the hotel to ask about this.
They will or already have. Comparing this to the Kerry story I mentioned, the CNNs of the world kept quiet about it for a few days and it was Drudge who broke the story - because the news agencies checked it out and decided there was nothing to it. Eventually they reported it as a rumor and it was debunked pretty fast. You may see that pattern play out again here.

gonzomax

07-23-2008, 08:38 PM

The Enquirer hardly qualifies as a paper. I need more. I voted for him in the Michigan primary.

Diogenes the Cynic

07-23-2008, 10:07 PM

Never mind. Mistaken assumption.

Sampiro

07-23-2008, 11:57 PM

The Enquirer hardly qualifies as a paper. I need more.

You might need more, but unfortunately a lot of people don't. The Enquirer still has a circulation of well over a million (down from it's peak of several times that a few years ago) and is probably a lot more influential than many people realize. Also, after a few expensive lawsuits they stopped making things up out of whole cloth about celebrities (except maybe some blip gossip) and their cover stories now usually have- if not truth- at least the appearance of "it could be true" (not to say they don't still wildly exaggerate, but if they say that Omar Sharif and Lindsey Lohan are dating then they've at least got pictures of them having dinner together, which is probably what they have with Edwards- some kind of verisimilitudinous circumstantial "looks bad" piece of "evidence" that whether true or not is going to sell a lot of papers and be difficult to disprove (though a DNA test would do that).

gonzomax

07-24-2008, 12:19 AM

Probably? And you do not need more?

astro

07-24-2008, 01:27 AM

The Inquirer has him pinned. These charges are too dangerous legally for them to be pulling them out their asses, and their rep for accuracy is actually pretty good for the bigger stuff they have broken like Limbaugh's drug use.

Edwards is done.

Diogenes the Cynic

07-24-2008, 02:48 AM

All the Enquirer is really claiming outright is that Edwards met her at a hotel. Everything else is extropolation.

Baldwin

07-24-2008, 08:22 AM

Oh yah, Obama would want a cancer victim, a mistriss and a bastard chld sucking oxygen out of election day.Elizabeth Edwards is very intelligent, lively and a good speaker, and might help dispell the stigma some morons attach to "cancer victims".

Not sure what a "mistriss" or a "bastard chld" are.

middleman

07-24-2008, 09:46 AM

It is really hard for a public figure to sue for libel or slander. The burden is overwhelimingly in the favor of the publisher of the story.

That the statements are false is not enough. The statements must have been made maliciously, with the publisher having KNOWN they were false (this is a broad description of the standard.)

But for the sake of argument, let's say Edwards can prove the NE's conduct meets the standard of public figure libel. He's still a fool to sue. As the attorney for NE, here would be my first five substanative questions (of course, there would be follow ups to each based on how evasive Edwards is in his answers. I'm betting he would be dangerous).

1. Have you ever in your (x) years of marriage has any form of sexual or intimate relations with a person not your wife Elizabeth, including intercourse, oral sex, contact with breasts or sexual organs, or kissing on the mouth?

2. Have you ever in your life engaged in any form of homosexual or intimate relations with a man, including intercourse, oral sex, contact with his penis or anus, his contact with your pensi or anus, or kissing him on the mouth?

3. Do you have any financial accounts on which your wife is not a signatory? (If so, detail them.)

4. What is your exact net worth?

5. How much did you make for (venture capital firm)?

I couldn't include it in my five because it is heartless, but if you really wanted to rattle him (an angry deponent is a careless deponent), your first question could be "Did you father a child with (slut) because you felt some guilt over the death of your son?"

I couldn't ask that question, but I imagine the lawyer hired by the NE could summon the courage (or lacks the decency).

My point is, you can ask just about pretty much anything in a deposition. There is no judge there. Lawyers (in Texas at least) can pretty much only object to form of the question and privileged information. Even then, these objections are generally noted for the record the the deponent must typically answer the question.

That is why celebs talk a good game about suing and then do not.

Or they sue in England where the libel laws are not as strict and the depositions apparently not as brutal.

Magiver

07-25-2008, 01:12 AM

Elizabeth Edwards is very intelligent, lively and a good speaker, and might help dispell the stigma some morons attach to "cancer victims".

Not sure what a "mistriss" or a "bastard chld" are. O K. You care to explain that one.

mswas

07-25-2008, 02:07 AM

Edwards is going to make a great Attorney General.

Magiver

07-25-2008, 11:31 AM

Edwards is going to make a great Attorney General. He might find himself standing in front of an Attorney General as a witness.

BrainGlutton

07-25-2008, 01:05 PM

He might find himself standing in front of an Attorney General as a witness.

To what?

Sampiro

07-25-2008, 01:37 PM

To what?

Jehovah?

Diogenes the Cynic

07-25-2008, 01:49 PM

Jehovah?
[Throwing rock]

He said Jehovah.

John Mace

07-25-2008, 01:55 PM

Well, this story seems to have not progressed beyond the National Enquirer stage. Is it forked yet?

Algher

07-25-2008, 02:08 PM

People who believe what they read in The National Enquirer don't need evidence.

I'm sure I don't need to remind you who those people are.

Regards,
Shodan

Voters.

Sampiro

07-25-2008, 02:40 PM

Guard Confirms Late-Night Hotel Encounter Between Ex-Sen. John Edwards, Tabloid Reporters (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,391426,00.html)

The Beverly Hilton Hotel guard said he encountered a shaken and ashen-faced Edwards — whom he did not immediately recognize — in a hotel men's room early Tuesday morning in a literal tug-of-war with reporters on the other side of the door.

So it's even worse than reported: he was in a men's room tugging on something til he was shaking and ashen faced.

So it's gone from Enquirer to blogs to Fox. Looks like it's sinking then.

Shodan

07-25-2008, 03:53 PM

So it's even worse than reported: he was in a men's room tugging on something til he was shaking and ashen faced.There's a "wide stance" joke in there somewhere.

Regards,
Shodan

Magiver

07-25-2008, 04:12 PM

To what? To whatever happened at the hotel for which the National Enquirer is sueing them over.

Lamar Mundane

07-25-2008, 04:16 PM

Who is the National Enquirer sueing (sic)?

Diogenes the Cynic

07-25-2008, 04:25 PM

And why would the USAG be involved in a civil lawsuit?

Magiver

07-25-2008, 04:29 PM

Who is the National Enquirer sueing (sic)? Actually it would be the reporters who filed a complaint against the hotel security guards.

Magiver

07-25-2008, 04:47 PM

And why would the USAG be involved in a civil lawsuit? He wouldn't but he has as much chance of seeing a judge as he does being the AG because of this.

ralph124c

07-25-2008, 05:47 PM

..for being a freaking moron! Somebody with his money can find better ways to meet with a hoe/girfriend/mistress. This happened because of arrogance!

dropzone

07-25-2008, 10:21 PM

ralph you and I both know that politicians are, almost by definition, arrogant and think with their smaller, dumber heads.

Y'know, thinking as a recently-elected president, why on earth would I want a smirking sleazeball like Edwards as my AG? And after this, which will burn most of his remaining credibility, the kid's dead politically. Like I said before, WAY too many people LURVE his wife. He's a liability, and Obama can't risk wasting a cabinet post on him. Edwards will be back to chasing ambulances just to keep a roof over his head in no time.

Marley23

07-25-2008, 10:25 PM

Y'know, thinking as a recently-elected president, why on earth would I want a smirking sleazeball like Edwards as my AG?
Because some of us think Edwards endorsed Obama and started campaigning on his behalf in return for being promised the AG spot. If this is true, though, deal's got to be off.

dropzone

07-25-2008, 10:46 PM

Absolutely. "Sorry, old chap, but you and your dick fucked this one up from here to Election Day."

Personally, I'm torn between hoping nothing like this comes out about Obama and a vain hope that Michelle has a thing for middleaged, fat, white guys to comfort her.

Frostillicus

07-26-2008, 06:00 PM

To be fair, if we are to believe the validity of this NE story, we must also believe the validity of these other NE stories, right?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/25/9551/87873

(I especially like the one about Laura's claw marks).

Shugahhhh

07-29-2008, 02:25 AM

The overarching issue is that Edwards has denied the affair when questioned about it in the past. If it would now turn out to be fact, his credibility is shot, his veracity is challenged, and it becomes a broader character issue--much like Clinton's lying about Lewinsky. And, unlike Edwards' wife, Hillary was never a sympathetic character--but Bill was skewered nonetheless.

But in response to the OP, it's an unfortunate fact that, in the court of public opinion, the accused is guilty until proven innocent. By virtue of that, Edwards has already become a liability. It may not be right, but it just is.

What the .... ?!?!

08-03-2008, 09:54 PM

Hey it's been about four days and I haven't seen much on this..... must be Edwards doesn't have a lovechild.

Surely this would have made the mainstream if he did ;)

Diogenes the Cynic

08-03-2008, 10:15 PM

It will make the mainstream if it gets confirmed. Until then it's not news. It's not really that newsworthy even if it is true. There's no law against getting some strange.

Magiver

08-05-2008, 05:07 AM

There's no law against getting some strange. In this case, the affected spouse could sue:

North Carolina (http://ezinearticles.com/?Infidelity,-Divorce,-and-Lawsuits---Understanding-Alienation-of-Affections-and-Criminal-Conversation&id=1003691) is one of few states that recognize alienation of affections and criminal conversation as torts, or wrongdoings that allow the plaintiff to recover damages. The basis of such laws, point to a type of injury or loss that occurs to the innocent spouse when a third party acts in a manner that is destructive to the marriage.

The foundation of a criminal conversation claim is injury, loss, or damage based on actual sexual intercourse between the plaintiff's spouse and the third party (defendant). Under North Carolina law, each provable act of intercourse gives rise to a separate criminal conversations claim. In order to recover damages on the basis of criminal conversation, you must prove that: 1) the act of sexual intercourse took place between your spouse and the defendant, 2) you have a valid, existing marriage, and 3) the adulterous act or acts took place within the three-year statute of limitations. Consent by the plaintiff to extramarital sexual intercourse is the only viable defense to a criminal conversations claim. Ignorance, seduction, marital instability, and even separation are not valid defenses.

Marley23

08-05-2008, 07:01 AM

Hey it's been about four days and I haven't seen much on this..... must be Edwards doesn't have a lovechild.
Or at least there isn't any persuasive evidence that he does.
Surely this would have made the mainstream if he did ;)
Yeah, believe it or not, those Communists on the TV news would pay attention if a once (and potentially future) candidate for Vice President turned out to be cheating on his cancer-survivor wife and had a child out of wedlock. CNN and Fox News would somehow manage to be interested in a story like that.

John Mace

08-05-2008, 09:42 AM

It will make the mainstream if it gets confirmed. Until then it's not news. It's not really that newsworthy even if it is true. There's no law against getting some strange.
There's also no law stating that only illegal acts are newsworthy. If he has a "love child", it'll be plenty newsworthy. Enquiring minds want to know!

Magiver

08-07-2008, 11:52 PM

There's also no law stating that only illegal acts are newsworthy. If he has a "love child", it'll be plenty newsworthy. Enquiring minds want to know! Enquiring minds have pictures (http://www.nationalenquirer.com/exclusive_john_edwards_love_child_photos/celebrity/65258) to look at.

A smart trial lawyer should be able to squeeze some money out of a slanderous newspaper.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-08-2008, 12:19 AM

You don't sue newspapers for slander, you sue them for liable, and no, it's isn't easy at all for a public figure to recover any damages. It's almost impossible, in fact.

Magiver

08-08-2008, 12:41 AM

You don't sue newspapers for slander, you sue them for liable, and no, it's isn't easy at all for a public figure to recover any damages. It's almost impossible, in fact. Carol Burnett sued the Enquirer for saying she was drunk in a restaurant and won.

Given that the Newspaper set "reporters" on Edwards like a pack of dogs I'd say he has a good chance to sue if they are full of it.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-08-2008, 12:47 AM

No chance whatsoever. Carol Burnett is an extreme exception and the fact that you have to go back 30 years to find something only proves my point. The standards are all but impossible to meet. It's not enough to prove that the story isn't true. You have to prove that the publisher KNEW it wasn't true and that it was published with malicious intent. Those are two extremely difficult things to prove. Not only that, but you also have to show that the story has damaged you monetarily. Hurting your feelings isn't enough. That's why celeberities almost never even try.

By the way, the Enquirer has made all kinds of allegations about George W. Bush over the last 8 years, including that he's back on the bottle and that laura's going to leave him. Why hasn't he sued? I guess it must be true, huh?

Magiver

08-08-2008, 01:05 AM

No chance whatsoever. Carol Burnett is an extreme exception and the fact that you have to go back 30 years to find something only proves my point. I provided a real case. You provided... nothing.

All that is required is to show is reckless disregard for the truth. The newspaper needs some form of reputable information to fall back on.

Edwards should have an easy case of it.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-08-2008, 01:18 AM

I provided a real case. You provided... nothing.

All that is required is to show is reckless disregard for the truth.
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html
Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth.
Proving malice is the really hard part. You might think that proving "reckless disregard for the truth" is easy, but it's not at all.

Do you believe that eveything the Enquirer has said about GWB is true? If not then why hasn't he sued?

Diogenes the Cynic

08-08-2008, 01:19 AM

Oh...and who gives a shit about John Edwards' sex life anyway?

Magiver

08-08-2008, 01:40 AM

Oh...and who gives a shit about John Edwards' sex life anyway? Don Fowler (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/46637.html), former Democratic National Committee chair.

If Edwards fails to clear up the story in short order, he risks party officials deciding not to have him speak or, if they do, creating a distraction from a week focused on Barack Obama accepting the nomination.

"If there is not an explanation that’s satisfactory, acceptable and meets high moral standards, the answer is 'no,' he would not be a prime candidate to make a major address to the convention," said Don Fowler, a former Democratic National Committee chair.

Magiver

08-08-2008, 01:50 AM

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html

Proving malice is the really hard part. You might think that proving "reckless disregard for the truth" is easy, but it's not at all.

Do you believe that eveything the Enquirer has said about GWB is true? If not then why hasn't he sued? Proving reckless disregard for the truth was not hard for Carol Burnett. Given how subjective "drunkenness" would be to prove I don't see the problem with something as concrete as an illegitimate child.

As for Dubbwa, you'll have to ask him yourself.

Marley23

08-08-2008, 07:09 AM

A smart trial lawyer should be able to squeeze some money out of a slanderous newspaper.
He's right: it's very hard to prove reckless disregard or actual malice. And the Enquirer couldn't get away with its style of reporting, or creating, or whatever you want to call it, if it didn't have the best lawyers.

Magiver

08-08-2008, 12:10 PM

He's right: it's very hard to prove reckless disregard or actual malice. And the Enquirer couldn't get away with its style of reporting, or creating, or whatever you want to call it, if it didn't have the best lawyers. According to Wiki Edwards was known as the top plaintiffs' attorney in North Carolina. He is the best of the best. Given that he doesn't have to charge himself for attorney fees his expense is a ream of paper and some ink. On the flip side, the National Enquirer has a group of lawyers to defend themselves from all the other lawsuits you predict because of their style of reporting.

So lets review: best lawyer in North Carolina who is working for free versus an expensive cadre of attorneys who have other lawsuits to deal with. The attorney who is working for free is dealing with an object that is real. It is not conjecture that he cheated with his wife based on observation of them in close proximity. The newspaper is claiming he fathered a child and produced a picture of him holding the child.

It is easy to argue opinion of a relationship based on observed behavior. the National Enquirer can state that in their opinion Edwards and his love muffin touched and kissed each other in a way that suggests an affair. The newspaper has an easy case because they are arguing opinion. A child is not an opinion, it is flesh and blood reality. A DNA test proves them wrong.

And while Edwards may have the status of fame, the mother and child do not. There are 3 lawsuits that can be aimed at the newspaper.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-08-2008, 12:47 PM

Why isn't Bush suing the Enquirer?

Diogenes the Cynic

08-08-2008, 12:48 PM

By the way, why are you so obsessed with John Edwards' penis?

Marley23

08-08-2008, 12:55 PM

According to Wiki Edwards was known as the top plaintiffs' attorney in North Carolina. He is the best of the best. Given that he doesn't have to charge himself for attorney fees his expense is a ream of paper and some ink.
I am not questioning his lawyering skills, although I don't know how much he know about this particular area of the law.
On the flip side, the National Enquirer has a group of lawyers to defend themselves from all the other lawsuits you predict because of their style of reporting.
That's not what I said. I said, by reputation, the Enquirer is supposed to have excellent lawyers, and that the paper supposedly runs everything past them before printing it to determine if they could be sued for it. The paper has trafficked in gossip for a very long time and knows exactly where the lines are.
the National Enquirer can state that in their opinion Edwards and his love muffin touched and kissed each other in a way that suggests an affair. The newspaper has an easy case because they are arguing opinion. A child is not an opinion, it is flesh and blood reality. A DNA test proves them wrong.
But it does not prove they acted with reckless disregard for the truth, or malice toward Edwards. Being reckless is not the same as being in error, and he would have to prove the writer or editors or publishers did not care if the story was false when they printed it, perhaps citing conversations in the newsroom or notes or emails. (Or, to prove malice, he'd have to show they wanted to hurt him.) This is not easily done, and the paper has not often been sued successfully. He would also have to prove that his reputation was harmed, which sounds easy but considering the things people say about politicians every day, might not be simple.

Magiver

08-08-2008, 01:38 PM

But it does not prove they acted with reckless disregard for the truth, or malice toward Edwards. Being reckless is not the same as being in error, and he would have to prove the writer or editors or publishers did not care if the story was false when they printed it, perhaps citing conversations in the newsroom or notes or emails. (Or, to prove malice, he'd have to show they wanted to hurt him.) This is not easily done, and the paper has not often been sued successfully. He would also have to prove that his reputation was harmed, which sounds easy but considering the things people say about politicians every day, might not be simple. Let me restate my point to make it a little clearer. A child is a real thing. As such, it's existence is a yes or no question. The "fact" of the child is something that can be verified by the newspaper. Edwards does not have to show malice, he has to show that they were reckless in their ability to verify a simple fact. There is no gray area of opinion regarding this.

And as I said before, there are 3 lawsuits that can be brought against the newspaper. Actually 4 because one of Edwards aides (Andrew Young) claims to be the father of the child.

Marley23

08-08-2008, 01:56 PM

Let me restate my point to make it a little clearer. A child is a real thing. As such, it's existence is a yes or no question. The "fact" of the child is something that can be verified by the newspaper. Edwards does not have to show malice, he has to show that they were reckless in their ability to verify a simple fact. There is no gray area of opinion regarding this.
Unless I've missed something, the question is not "is there a child," which is easily answered. It's "who is the father," which is not as readily apparent.

Magiver

08-08-2008, 02:07 PM

Unless I've missed something, the question is not "is there a child," which is easily answered. It's "who is the father," which is not as readily apparent. I understand what you're saying but the paternaty of the child is something that can be verified and 4 people can sue the paper based on that.

What piece of information is the Newspaper holding that it relieves them of the charge of reckless disregard for the truth? A man has pubicly declared the child is his. The newspaper says otherwise.

update as I'm typing this. Edwards just admitted his affair (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5441195&page=1) (but not the child).

So his political career is toast. Screwing a bimbo (he admits he didn't love her) while his wife fights cancer is not a vote getter. When you consider that he gave up valuable time with her to run for President he's less than toast.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-08-2008, 02:11 PM

Marley23

08-08-2008, 02:19 PM

I understand what you're saying but the paternaty of the child is something that can be verified and 4 people can sue the paper based on that.
Paternity can be easily verified, yes - although it can't be easily verified by the Enquirer, so they wouldn't be expected to verify it. They do not need to prove that Edwards is the father, though. Again - even if several other people were involved with this woman and the paper is wrong about Edwards being the father, that doesn't necessarily mean they were reckless.
What piece of information is the Newspaper holding that it relieves them of the charge of reckless disregard for the truth? A man has pubicly declared the child is his. The newspaper says otherwise.
That doesn't prove his declaration is true, and Edwards has apparently not taken a paternity test, so he can't even say for sure that what the paper reported is false.

Even he hadn't just copped to this, the newspaper doesn't need to hold any proof that Edwards is the father. It's not reckless to say he's the father if it's possible he could be the father. They do not need to prove they were telling the truth. If he sues them, he is the plaintiff and he needs to prove they disregarded the truth and harmed his reputation- and incidentally his reputation is going to be lower than whale shit in about half an hour, not that that matters now.

Basically, if the paper can show it had a good reason to believe Edwards is the father, they are in the clear. And since he's just admitted to sleeping with the mother, they're all set.

Screwing a bimbo (he admits he didn't love her) while his wife fights cancer is not a vote getter.
No, and even though it's not my business I'd say it makes him a world-class asshole.

Magiver

08-08-2008, 02:28 PM

Why is he any more toast than McCain? McCain cheated on his wife after she was crippled in a car accident, dumped her for a beer heiress and he's doing just fine politically. Oh wait, I forgot. It's ok if you're a Republican. Cite that McCain had an affair because I can cite that Edwards did and was actively doing it while campaigning.

Marley23

08-08-2008, 02:33 PM

Cite that McCain had an affair because I can cite that Edwards did and was actively doing it while campaigning.
He's admitted to having affairs while married to his first wife. (http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/articles/0301mccainbio-chapter5.html)

BrainGlutton

08-08-2008, 02:34 PM

Cite that McCain had an affair because I can cite that Edwards did and was actively doing it while campaigning.

Here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_mccain#Marriage_and_family)

Hensley met John McCain in April 1979 at a military reception in Hawaii.[18] He was the U.S. Navy liaison officer to the United States Senate, almost eighteen years her senior.[19] McCain and Hensley quickly began a relationship,[19] traveling between Arizona and Washington to see each other.[10] John McCain pushed to end his marriage;[18] Carol McCain and John McCain stopped cohabiting in January 1980,[20] and Carol accepted a divorce in February of 1980,[18] effective in April 1980. John and Cindy were married on May 17, 1980 at the Arizona Biltmore Hotel in Phoenix.[10] They made a prenuptial agreement that kept most of her family's assets under her name;[21] they have since kept their finances apart and file separate income tax returns.[21]

Magiver

08-08-2008, 02:37 PM

He's admitted to having affairs while married to his first wife. (http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/articles/0301mccainbio-chapter5.html) You mean the article you posted where he was separated from his wife?

DanBlather

08-08-2008, 02:41 PM

You mean the article you posted where he was separated from his wife?And which says he adimts to multiple extramarital affairs.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-08-2008, 02:44 PM

You mean the article you posted where he was separated from his wife?
No, he admits to having multiple affairs before he was separated.

Maeglin

08-08-2008, 03:00 PM

I don't think he will be suing the Enquirer. (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5441195&page=1)

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

Forked.

Edited: Argh, beaten. Sorry!

ArizonaTeach

08-08-2008, 03:07 PM

Why is he any more toast than McCain? McCain cheated on his wife after she was crippled in a car accident, dumped her for a beer heiress and he's doing just fine politically. Oh wait, I forgot. It's ok if you're a Republican.Jesus, quit obsessing over McCain's sex life, Dio. Besides, you've reached your tu quoque quota for this week already.

foolsguinea

08-08-2008, 03:10 PM

OK, first off, I don't yet quite buy that Edwards was even having an affair. Certainly he's an attractive man who could land a nice nubile thing on the side, but I keep looking for an innocent explanation.

But if he was, yeah, at least take him off the short list for VP (not that he was there anyway). Push come to shove, McCain's a confirmed adulterer, & Obama might be able to win with Edwards on the ticket. But this isn't France. Why take a chance?

dalej42

08-08-2008, 03:12 PM

Very convenient that the story came out on a Friday night, the same night as the opening ceremonies of the Olympics.

John Mace

08-08-2008, 03:14 PM

OK, first off, I don't yet quite buy that Edwards was even having an affair.
You don't believe Edwards when he admitted to having the affair? Why would he lie about that?

DSYoungEsq

08-08-2008, 03:36 PM

People who believe what they read in The National Enquirer don't need evidence.

I'm sure I don't need to remind you who those people are.

Regards,
Shodan
With respect, the Enquirer is generally right about what it publishes in the way of allegations of fact. As, it turns out in this case, appears to be true (we know now the affair part is correct; I'd strongly suspect the father is Edwards as well, which may well turn out to be true, later).

Magiver

08-08-2008, 03:42 PM

Very convenient that the story came out on a Friday night, the same night as the opening ceremonies of the Olympics. Maybe it will become a political sport.

An Arky

08-08-2008, 03:45 PM

Damn. Edwards, you idiot! :mad:

That dude just went into the shitter to me. It's weird, because I didn't feel that way about Clinton, but then again I'm from Arkansas and knew he was a hound dog already.

I know some of y'all are probably gonna say "see, I had him pegged, the lying sack of shit".

Well, you got it. Mark that little tick mark on the old tally sheet.

I'm bummed, because he's one of the guys who had the gumption to take it to The Man and won.

I should just be philosophical and reckon that the gumption required to take on The Man and the gumption required to be a National Politician and the gumption required to fuck out on your wife are likely largely occupying the same mental space. :(

Diogenes the Cynic

08-08-2008, 03:51 PM

With respect, the Enquirer is generally right about what it publishes in the way of allegations of fact. As, it turns out in this case, appears to be true (we know now the affair part is correct; I'd strongly suspect the father is Edwards as well, which may well turn out to be true, later).
You suspect that based on what personal knowledge?

Also, if you're confident that the Enquirer is reliable in its allegations of fact, does that mean you believe the stories that GWB is drinking again and that Laura is going to divorce him after he leaves office?

Elendil's Heir

08-08-2008, 03:59 PM

You're lower than a snake's belly if you cheat on your wife while she's fighting cancer, and lie about it, and your mistress isn't even good-looking.

Wait, aren't we in IMHO? ;)

DSYoungEsq

08-08-2008, 04:00 PM

You suspect that based on what personal knowledge?

Also, if you're confident that the Enquirer is reliable in its allegations of fact, does that mean you believe the stories that GWB is drinking again and that Laura is going to divorce him after he leaves office?
I suspect it based upon no personal knowledge, but rather one the basis that A) why else would Edwards go to the hotel, and B) why else would he have spent all this time denying what otherwise would appear to have been a relatively minor affair?

As the the Enquirer, unless you can point me to a story that I've missed (I don't exactly read it religiously, you know ;) ), I don't recall them as having made the statements you assert them making. You have to read that "paper" carefully. There is a VAST difference between "George W. Bush is drinking again," and "people in the know say George W. Bush is drinking again." On this thin line the Enquirer rests much of what it says. When it actually says something is true, instead of reporting what people are saying, it's very likely to be actually true.

Suse

08-08-2008, 04:05 PM

Jackmannii

08-08-2008, 04:06 PM

I'm bummed, because he's one of the guys who had the gumption to take it to The Man and won.If the reaction of one of my physician colleagues to the affair is any indication, The Man is high-fiving and rolling on the floor laughing about now.I should just be philosophical and reckon that the gumption required to take on The Man and the gumption required to be a National Politician and the gumption required to fuck out on your wife are likely largely occupying the same mental space.Yep, Newt Gingrich already proved that. :dubious:

Um, Suse? You can stick a fork in John Edwards' political ambitions now - he's done. (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5441195&page=1)

DSYoungEsq

08-08-2008, 04:28 PM

I really don't see that it's anyone else's business besides John and Elizabeth Edwards', so no, it shouldn't disqualify him from the running. We expect too much out of candidates' marriages; the candidates and their wives are human, with all the flaws that implies. Some stray, some don't, and I don't really care either way.

I think John Edwards would be a good VP pick but I can't imagine that it would be all that rewarding for him or for his wife, with her health issues.
Suse, it isn't so much the fact he had an "affair," which would bother the Right much more than it would bother the Left. It's the continued attempt to not only stonewall, but flat-out lie about it that is bothersome. It shows that Edwards is the same as many politicians: unwilling to admit personal mistakes either out of some arrogance or out of fear that, by admitting mistake, his chances as a politician are done. A "good" man would stand up and admit the error, ask forgiveness, and be done with it.

Please note that, in this case, it isn't a matter of denying it to keep it from his family, either. According to the reports, he admitted the truth of the affair to his wife some time ago, yet has still continued to deny it to the public.

As Mr. Knightly says in Emma, "Badly done, Mr. Edwards, badly done indeed."

HoboStew

08-08-2008, 04:45 PM

It's the continued attempt to not only stonewall, but flat-out lie about it that is bothersome.I don't really understand this line of thought. The whole point of having an affair is to keep people from knowing about it. The lie is inexorably intertwined with the affair. I suppose its possible to have a one-time affair, admit it the next day and ask for forgiveness, but I really don't think that fits the pattern of most affairs.

DSYoungEsq

08-08-2008, 04:48 PM

I don't really understand this line of thought. The whole point of having an affair is to keep people from knowing about it. The lie is inexorably intertwined with the affair. I suppose its possible to have a one-time affair, admit it the next day and ask for forgiveness, but I really don't think that fits the pattern of most affairs.
The issue isn't lying about an ongoing affair. That's kind of inherent in the term "affair," though I suppose you could consider an open relationship with someone to whom you are not married an "affair."

But here, the affair was over and done with when the lying in question occurred. That's potentially different, though I will submit that, if you are caught in the act, and cornered, and you lie about it, that's still not a good thing.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-08-2008, 04:50 PM

But why was it ever the public's business? I don't have a problem with somebody lying about an affair. If you tell the truth about an affair, you're not doing it right.

John Mace

08-08-2008, 04:53 PM

But why was it ever the public's business?
Because people are nosey. We like to gossip, and that's probably in our genes.

HoboStew

08-08-2008, 04:58 PM

But here, the affair was over and done with when the lying in question occurred. That's potentially different, though I will submit that, if you are caught in the act, and cornered, and you lie about it, that's still not a good thing.While that may be the case here, I see this POV all the time when these cases go public. Clinton comes to mind immediately. "It's not the cheating, it's the LYING" just doesn't make any sense to me. I suspect people don't like being accused of being the moral police, so they channel their outrage over the affair into outrage about lying, which is a perfectly socially acceptable form of outrage.

jtgain

08-08-2008, 04:58 PM

Two thoughts:

1. Couldn't John Edwards get some prime pussy? Why is he after this skank?

His political action committee later paid her $114,000 to produce campaign website documentaries despite her lack of experience.

2. Doesn't this violate some campaign finance law? Bang some chick and pay her six figures from donations?

Suse

08-08-2008, 05:00 PM

I'm not disappointed, if anyone thinks I'm harboring some secret ambition for Edwards to be the VP pick. At this point I don't have a preference and it wouldn't matter if I did. I guess I don't see that anyone has the right to ask the question except the spouse. Questioning by anyone outside the marriage, including the media, is improper unless the question is invited by the candidate, in the manner of Gary Hart.

And it wouldn't have gone better for Edwards had he confessed when the story first came out. His career would have been as destroyed as it seems to be today.

I don't like it when I'm lied to, but if I never should have asked the question in the first place as it had no bearing on my particular interests in the person (which for a politician, means my interests in his manner of governing, not asking about his romantic life), maybe I deserved the answer I got.

Gangster Octopus

08-08-2008, 05:05 PM

Am I not allowed to think less of someone because they had an affair? because it is a "private matter"?

jtgain

08-08-2008, 05:08 PM

I don't like it when I'm lied to, but if I never should have asked the question in the first place as it had no bearing on my particular interests in the person (which for a politician, means my interests in his manner of governing, not asking about his romantic life), maybe I deserved the answer I got.

I guess this is my disconnect with others politically. You don't equate a man being disloyal to his family as a moral failing of judgement that would carry over into his judgement in public policy decisions?

I do. I can't for the life of me separate the two. He didn't think about how his actions would affect his wife who was battling cancer, or his kids who look upon him as the head of the family. What he cared about what getting his own dick wet.

Don't you think that would translate when a national crisis would arise? (e.g. Is action X good for the country or good for me?)

DSYoungEsq

08-08-2008, 05:09 PM

But why was it ever the public's business? I don't have a problem with somebody lying about an affair. If you tell the truth about an affair, you're not doing it right.
I disagree with you, not so much about who's business it is, but about lying.

After all, if you as the adulterer believe it is no one's business, you can say that. "Senator Edwards, is it true you had an affair?" "That's none of your business." See?

But to LIE is wrong, period. Always wrong. Wrong in all cases. Wrong in all ways. Wrong, plain wrong, morally wrong, simply wrong. It indicates that you have the belief that telling the truth is something unimportant when it benefits you not to do so. Which, according to many, is exactly what they dislike about George W. Bush and his administration (see, e.g.: the issue of whether or not the administration lied in order to get a vote authorizing the Iraq war).

A person who lies about their personal life, in my opinion, is willing and able to lie about anything, including their professional life. As a person who stood before judges numerous times and had to be believed in order for the judge to be willing to do what I needed him/her to do to the benefit of my client, I can say that lying is one of those things I just don't condone, in anyone, for any reason.

BrainGlutton

08-08-2008, 05:18 PM

You're lower than a snake's belly if you cheat on your wife while she's fighting cancer . . .

Look, when your wife is dying, where are ya supposed to get some? It would be an imposition to ask her!

;)

Diogenes the Cynic

08-08-2008, 05:22 PM

Am I not allowed to think less of someone because they had an affair? because it is a "private matter"?
You're allowed to think less. My point is really about whether the public is entitled to ask about it, or whether the person in question is obliged to give honest answers about it.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-08-2008, 05:30 PM

jtgain

08-08-2008, 05:31 PM

You're allowed to think less. My point is really about whether the public is entitled to ask about it, or whether the person in question is obliged to give honest answers about it.

Is said person asking for a vote? Then it would, in return, be up to the individual voter as to whether or not a refusal to answer the question, or a lie to the question, would suffice.

Why is adultery so sacrosanct? I remember in 96 someone asked Bob Dole what his favorite junk food was. Why didn't he tell the questioner to fuck off as the question wasn't important because it didn't hinge on his ability to govern?

or how about this:

Q: How are you feeling this morning, Sen. Obama?
A: Piss off. That is my own private business and you have no right to ask me that.
Q: I was just trying to make conversation.
A: Well, piss off just the same. My conversation skills do not translate into my ability to govern the country.

???

jtgain

08-08-2008, 05:32 PM

So you don't trust John McCain, then?

Actually, I don't, but I don't know the details there. IIRC, his marriage was in the crapper, and he only started banging his current wife after he was separated from his first..

Diogenes the Cynic

08-08-2008, 05:52 PM

Actually, I don't, but I don't know the details there. IIRC, his marriage was in the crapper, and he only started banging his current wife after he was separated from his first..
That's incorrect. He's admitted to "multiple extramarital affairs" before he was separated.

Bricker

08-08-2008, 05:53 PM

jtgain

08-08-2008, 06:13 PM

That's incorrect. He's admitted to "multiple extramarital affairs" before he was separated.

If that is true (and I haven't researched it) it is a fair thing for a voter to distrust McCain for it. It is also legitimate to see that he has been with this same woman for almost 30 years now as evidence that he has a changed view of loyalty, or that the previous time was a lapse in judgement.

My point is that I don't think that pouring the pork to someone while you are married is something that is simply a private thing that you should be insulated from..

EddyTeddyFreddy

08-08-2008, 07:01 PM

I guess this is my disconnect with others politically. You don't equate a man being disloyal to his family as a moral failing of judgement that would carry over into his judgement in public policy decisions?

I do. I can't for the life of me separate the two. He didn't think about how his actions would affect his wife who was battling cancer, or his kids who look upon him as the head of the family. What he cared about what getting his own dick wet.

Don't you think that would translate when a national crisis would arise? (e.g. Is action X good for the country or good for me?)
Not to mention, he went ahead and ran for president in this cycle knowing that he had this skeleton in his closet; knowing that he, like every candidate, would be subject to intense scrutiny into every nook and cranny of his life; knowing that if the affair came to light he'd be sunk politically (whether that's fair or not being beside the point); and knowing that this is the Democratic Party's best chance in a generation to take control of both Congress and the White House.

So, besides putting satisfying his libido before his family, he also put it before his party and (if this doesn't sound hopelessly naive) his duty to his country.

John Mace

08-08-2008, 07:03 PM

I think it also shows an enormous lack of good judgement to carry on an extra-marital affair when he knew he was going to run in the Democratic presidential primary. The guy had been essentially campaigning since he and Kerry lost in '04.

Sam Stone

08-08-2008, 07:48 PM

Man, this thread is depressing in its predictability. I knew before opening it that the same people who declared John McCain to be the scum of the earth for cheating on his wife would suddenly decide that Edwards' affair was A) no one's business and B) not that big a deal.

The guy cheated on his dying wife. That's pretty low. Far worse than anything McCain did - McCain's situation was totally different. He was away for years, in a cage in Vietnam. He came back and his wife and he were different people, and they split amicably. He and his first wife are still good friends.

But regardless of who's worse, it should be clear now that Edwards is a complete dickhead. How would you all feel if he had won the Democratic nomination, knowing full well that he had a huge skeleton in his closet that would sink him when it was inevitably discovered? Talk about lack of judgment. There are people out there who are not well off and who gave a lot of their own money to this guy's presidential campaign. What kind of self-absorbed idiot do you have to be to risk sinking the presidential chances of your own party in that way?

I know lots of politicians have done this, but that's because lots of politicians are scumbags. The trick is latching on to the ones who aren't.

The Democrats dodged a bullet here, no thanks to John Edwards. If they have any sense, they'll make him a political pariah and let him go back to chasing ambulances.

AuntiePam

08-08-2008, 07:49 PM

I'm so glad he's not the presumptive nominee.

How likely is it that the baby isn't his? If it's not, then he showed even worse judgment, because he boinked a woman who was boinking someone else at the same time.

Rat bastard.

jtgain

08-08-2008, 08:01 PM

. Far worse than anything McCain did - McCain's situation was totally different. He was away for years, in a cage in Vietnam. He came back and his wife and he were different people, and they split amicably. He and his first wife are still good friends.

I usually agree with you, Sam, but just because you discover that you and your wife have drifted apart doesn't give you a blank check to fuck around. Let's be fair, here.

Sampiro

08-08-2008, 08:14 PM

The stupidest thing to me is "If the kid's not yours and the affair is over, WHY ADMIT TO THE AFFAIR NOW?" If the kid is yours, then that's a major WHY DENY IT? cause if it is you're just making it worse.

I've said before that I never faulted Bill Clinton for his sexual infidelities; in the first place it's his and his innermost circle's business, in the second I think many if not most men's fidelity is proportionate to their options. I fault him majorly for his handling of the affair: if he'd said something to the effect of "I will not answer questions about this, I believe they are nothing but a deliberate attempt to smear me and embarrass those I love, I cannot see how they have anything remotely to do with national security or the executive duties or the Whitewater business dealings or whatever you're pretending this already fusterclucked and improperly managed ever evolving and changing investigation is about these days, and I will not cooperate in your $40 million taxpayer funded attempt to write a National Enquirer article and call it an investigation", I honestly think most Americans, even many conservatives (except oddly for the ones with the biggest planks in their eye) would have been on his side, but when he said "I did not have improper relations with that woman" I remember thinking "Oooooh... you damned sure better not have... they'll forgive an adulterer quicker than they will a cool liar".

Same with Edwards.
I really do think it should be the same with McCain as with Obama as with Clinton as with Bush as with Bush 1 as with Edwards- if they're having extramarital sex I don't think it's anybody's business unless they're trading national secrets for it. If they're not, that's also okay. (Hell, Lucy Mercer was in Warm Springs GA with FDR when he died and between his affairs with her Missy Lehand lived in the White House with him- and we won't even go into the what if anything went on in the cottage bedroom (http://www.lincolncottage.org/) Lincoln and the soldier shared; neither WW2 or the Civil War was affected by whatever did or didn't happen in either presidential bed.)

But for God's sake just refuse to discuss the matter- don't lie about it. I may be naive, but I honestly think an "I will not answer questions about my private life and you may infer that to be a denial or a confirmation as you please, I do not care, but I will not compromise my privacy and that of my family for something not related to my job" would be the proper way to handle it.

foolsguinea

08-08-2008, 08:38 PM

You don't believe Edwards when he admitted to having the affair? Why would he lie about that?Well, that's what I tried to post two weeks ago when the internet ate my post. Now, of course, immediately after I posted that, he admits it.

Sam Stone

08-08-2008, 08:38 PM

I usually agree with you, Sam, but just because you discover that you and your wife have drifted apart doesn't give you a blank check to fuck around. Let's be fair, here.

Oh, I agree with that. But I don't really know the McCain's situation back then - do you? For all I know, he came back and they were completely over each other and just maintained a convenience marriage for a while before they could split up. I'm not sure they even lived together when he got back, because he went off to the War College. But I'm not excusing anything. My personal opinion is that it's valid to judge a Presidential candidate on the content of his character, and cheating on your spouse is a big character flaw. It's also fair to judge a candidate on his judgment, and carrying on an affair while running for president, and therefore being shadowed by reporters, shows appalling judgment.

As for whether it's anyone's business - Let's say Edwards had been the nominee, and the reporters who discovered his affair had actually been private investigators working for big oil or agribusiness or a foreign government, and they told Edwards they'd make the affair public unless he worked to give them a sweet deal?

Character matters, background matters, and skeletons in the closet matter.

EddyTeddyFreddy

08-08-2008, 08:50 PM

Diogenes the Cynic

08-08-2008, 09:09 PM

Diogenes the Cynic

08-08-2008, 09:19 PM

The guy cheated on his dying wife. That's pretty low. Far worse than anything McCain did - McCain's situation was totally different. He was away for years, in a cage in Vietnam. He came back and his wife and he were different people, and they split amicably. He and his first wife are still good friends.
Ha! She waited for his bitch ass for 5 1/2 years and kept her car accident a secret fromm him while he was there because she didn't want to put the extra stress and worry on him. Then he came back and she had lost her looks and lost part of her legs and he thought she wasn't worthy to be on his arm anymore. McCain himself has said that Vietnam had nothing to do with the breakup of his first marriage and blames it all on "my own immaturity and selfishness." Do I care? No. Do I think it has anything to do with his ability to be President? No. But what he did was far more shiitty than what John Edwards did. Edwards stumbled with one woman (as opposed to multiple women like McCain did), told his wife, was forgiven, and that was the end of it. Oh, and it happened before her current diagnosis, by the way. She wasn't sick when he banged this other chick. One more little thing: he didn't dump his wife for a richer, younger upgrade like McCain did.

Shodan

08-08-2008, 09:29 PM

Nobody has declared that. It's simply being pointed out conservative moral outrage about private sex lives is completely selective. Most of us libs don't care about either Mccain or Edwards. We are consistent. You are the hypocrites. Either you think fucking around on your wife matters or you don't. Don't switch it up according to whatever's politically convenient for you.The only problem with this is that it is bullshit. You care very deeply about McCain's adultery; but not about Edwards', who was fucking around on his wife while she was busy dying of cancer.

Gingrich supposedly serves his wife with divorce papers while she was recovering from cancer. Is this important? Kerry dumps his first wife because she is depressed. Is this important? Edwards fucks around behind his wife's back while she is dying. Is this important? McCain cheats on his wife after she gets into an accident. Is this important? Clinton lies his ass off about adultery and sexual harassment. Is this important?

Yes, yes, I know you are always going to say it's OK if a Democrat does it, and never if a Republican does it. But that is a stupid and hypocritical standard, and everyone knows it.
How would you all feel if he had won the Democratic nomination, knowing full well that he had a huge skeleton in his closet that would sink him when it was inevitably discovered?This would be so fucking funny, it wouldn't be funny.

Regards,
Shodan

Diogenes the Cynic

08-08-2008, 09:36 PM

You care very deeply about McCain's adultery
No I don't. I don't give a rat's ass. I just like to poke moralistic conservatives about it. Politicians can go under water and fuck fish for all I care.
Gingrich supposedly serves his wife with divorce papers while she was recovering from cancer. Is this important? Kerry dumps his first wife because she is depressed. Is this important? Edwards fucks around behind his wife's back while she is dying. Is this important? McCain cheats on his wife after she gets into an accident. Is this important? Clinton lies his ass off about adultery and sexual harassment. Is this important?
None of this is important, but I am always amused when a moralist gets caught.

ETA, John Edwards is a private citizen, not an elected official or a candidate. Why are his penis and testicles any more newsworthy than mine?

Diogenes the Cynic

08-08-2008, 09:41 PM

How would you all feel if he had won the Democratic nomination, knowing full well that he had a huge skeleton in his closet that would sink him when it was inevitably discovered?
He never had any chance to win the nomination.

Sampiro

08-08-2008, 09:46 PM

In Edwards' defense, I will say that just because his wife had cancer doesn't mean that's a reason to stay married or that it makes either of them better people. We don't know what their marriage was like before her diagnosis- for all we know he may have been a horndog all along- hell, for all we know she may have had a "bit on the side" when she was well, or the marriage could have been having serious problems for 25 years for all we know but was held together by political ambition and desire not to split the fortune.
Also, the statements "Elizabeth Edwards had cancer" and "John Edwards had an affair" aren't necessarily a cause:effect relationship; it doesn't mean he just said "eh, I don't want to have sex with a cancer patient, think I'll see if I can pick up... that girl" [zoom in on Marlo Thomas].) And I may get pitted for saying this, but imo the fact he cheated on his wife who has cancer doesn't mean he doesn't love her, but it could be that the extreme stress of the situation and fear of losing her and the fact they probably couldn't have a normal sex life while she was in treatment all combined to cause the affair. This isn't to say that it's her fault for getting sick, obviously, but that he wouldn't be the first person to relieve stress and try to feel normal by doing something stupid.

(Of course generally speaking I think that we tack waaaaaaaaay too much importance on complete sexual fidelity in long term relationships- not saying that everyone should have a fling once in a while, but just that there are worse things that can happen in a marriage/a one-night-stand or affair shouldn't automatically be interpreted as "the marriage is a shambles", but that's for another thread altogether.)

Sampiro

08-08-2008, 10:04 PM

While that may be the case here, I see this POV all the time when these cases go public. Clinton comes to mind immediately. "It's not the cheating, it's the LYING" just doesn't make any sense to me. I suspect people don't like being accused of being the moral police, so they channel their outrage over the affair into outrage about lying, which is a perfectly socially acceptable form of outrage.

I see no inconsistency. Why would I be outraged over whether Clinton (or any other person I don't know) has an affair? How does it "break my arm or pick my pocket" in any way? Plenty of people are outraged over the existence of gays or interracial dating or birth control or single mothers or other things that go against their moral code; they need to get over it and look to their own relationship (which they can conduct by any rules they wish).

Reepicheep

08-08-2008, 11:01 PM

And I may get pitted for saying this, but imo the fact he cheated on his wife who has cancer doesn't mean he doesn't love her, but it could be that the extreme stress of the situation and fear of losing her and the fact they probably couldn't have a normal sex life while she was in treatment all combined to cause the affair. This isn't to say that it's her fault for getting sick, obviously, but that he wouldn't be the first person to relieve stress and try to feel normal by doing something stupid.

I echo Sampiro’s comments on this not being proof that Edwards didn’t/doesn’t love his wife. Life threatening illnesses are enormous stresses for the loved ones of the ill person. People deal with stress in many stupid ways. For example, when my father had emergency open heart surgery I had 3 chocolate milkshakes and shot my sugar up above 240 (a truly dumb move for a diabetic). I feel much sorrier for Elizabeth and John Edwards, as well as their children, then I do triumphant that another politician has publically messed up.

I’m glad Edwards is not anywhere near the ticket. I hope, in a possible Obama administration, he would not have a post above gofer. However, since he is now a private citizen, hopefully he can mend the broken trust with his family. As long as this revaluation (the stupidity of running for office when he KNEW the affair was waiting to be uncovered is what I want the voters to remember) keeps him out of public life, I hope he can get his life straight with both his family and his Deity. . Hopefully the Edward’s children and Elizabeth Edwards will soon feel peace, they are the real victims.

DSYoungEsq

08-08-2008, 11:20 PM

ETA, John Edwards is a private citizen, not an elected official or a candidate. Why are his penis and testicles any more newsworthy than mine?Well, he will be as soon as he no longer has any campaign committee, isn't trying to raise funds, isn't politicking for any spot in an administration, and doesn't intend to run for political office in the future. Until then, the simple fact that he's on the list for potential VP is enough to make him someone whose LYING about his actions is fair game.

Magiver

08-08-2008, 11:38 PM

Just watched the Nightline segment (can't really call it an interview since he ducked the questions he said he would answer). ABC's post commercial that followed it was for their investigative report on Monday.

foolsguinea

08-09-2008, 12:49 AM

To be clear, again. He did not cheat on his dying wife. He cheated on his healthy wife, admitted it, tried to make up with her, & then stood by her (apparently faithfully) while she was dying.

At least, allegedly. So not necessarily lower than a snake. Definitely higher than Newt Gingrich.

Sam Stone

08-09-2008, 11:08 AM

Diogenes the Cynic

08-09-2008, 11:16 AM

Except you don't know that, and even if it were true, his wife isn't leaving him. If his wife doesn't care, why do you?

Sam Stone

08-09-2008, 12:29 PM

jayjay

08-09-2008, 12:55 PM

I'm angry at him for several reasons, some of which are reasonable and some of which are not, given that I'm not a family member or even friend. I'm angry at him on the basic level of cheating on a partner/mate/wife who did not consent to being in the sort of relationship that allows for that. I'm a proponent of open relationships for those who want to be in them, but that doesn't mean that someone taking a traditional marriage vow and breaking it is okay with me.

Second, I'm angry at him for running for president knowing that this was out there. Where the hell would the Democratic Party be if Edwards had actually gotten the nomination and THEN this came out? How can you be so irresponsible as to open the presidential race up to this kind of scandal? And yes, I realize this will be seized upon to tar me with the "But Bill Clinton..." brush, but I wasn't very happy about that, either. I think B. Clinton could have been a much better man and a much better president than he was. I still think that he was better than the Republicans he ran against, however.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-09-2008, 01:46 PM

What do you mean, I don't know that? Edwards admitted it. He also admitted that his wife did not know he was still seeing the woman.

And how do you translate "his wife isn't leaving him" into "his wife doesn't care"? She's dying, for God's sake. I doubt she has the time or inclination to set up a new life for herself, y'know?
The affair occurred before she had a terminal diagnosis. She wasn't "dying" in 2006. She wasn't sick yet. She didn't get sick until after the affair was over, Edwards had told her about it and she had forgiven him. You don't know that there is anything more to it than that or that he continued to have the affair after she became ill. You don't know that he was fucking her in that hotel. That's just wild speculation on your part.

Sam Stone

08-09-2008, 02:15 PM

DSYoungEsq

08-09-2008, 02:26 PM

The affair occurred before she had a terminal diagnosis. She wasn't "dying" in 2006. She wasn't sick yet. She didn't get sick until after the affair was over, Edwards had told her about it and she had forgiven him. You don't know that there is anything more to it than that or that he continued to have the affair after she became ill. You don't know that he was fucking her in that hotel. That's just wild speculation on your part.
Give it a rest, Diogenes. Trying to defend the man is wasted effort. He's already managed to trash all the efforts to defend him from before he admitted the affair. Maybe he screwed her again, maybe he didn't, but it isn't worth worrying about, is it?

Sam, the explanation that he went to see her to get her to keep quiet about the situation is certainly plausible. And Diogenes is right: since not even the Enquirer is asserting that he had sex with her on that occasion, it's just making things up to speculate that he was. Which isn't to say he wasn't. But you can't accuse him of doing it without some evidence, and you can't use the "fact" that he did it to support assertions about his character. As if anyone needs more ammunition than they've actually been handed. :rolleyes:

Diogenes the Cynic

08-09-2008, 02:49 PM

Give it a rest, Diogenes. Trying to defend the man is wasted effort. He's already managed to trash all the efforts to defend him from before he admitted the affair. Maybe he screwed her again, maybe he didn't, but it isn't worth worrying about, is it?
I know you're right, but it's annoying when keep keep adding onto it and trying to make it sound worse than what he's admitted to. A short affair, quickly ended, confessed to and forgiven for two years ago doesn't sound bad enough for them. They have to embellish with "Deathbed! Love baby! While she was DYYYYYIIING!!!11" I think it's childish. Let's at least stick to known facts.

jtgain

08-09-2008, 04:49 PM

Sam, the explanation that he went to see her to get her to keep quiet about the situation is certainly plausible.

I don't buy that at all. First, unless she is missing a few brain cells, she would know to be quiet about the situation. What could Edwards possibly be telling her in person, without his wife knowing, that he, or one of his aides couldn't accomplish over the phone?

I'm with Sam, here. No way was he there for 5 hours, ending at 2:45am, and not up to something.

When was the last time you were out and about at 3am, in a non-emergency situation, and doing something positive? Me neither..

Diogenes the Cynic

08-09-2008, 05:18 PM

jtgain

08-09-2008, 05:25 PM

You're speculating. You want that to to be what he was doing there, so you won't accept any other explanation. The fact remains that nobody knows what he was doing there except for the two people who were in that room. I don't think a long conversation/argument is at all out of the question.

Actually I don't care what he was doing there, but let me ask you this:

If your wife went to a hotel room to meet with a former lover, unbeknowst to you, and said former lover was the person that she cheated on you with two years prior, stayed there for five hours and left at 2:45am, what would you think the two of them were doing?

I don't mean to make the example personal, but even a husband/wife with the strongest relationship would have trouble swallowing the story that they were just talking or arguing.

This lady was on the paid staff as a videographer. She could have walked into his office in the middle of the day and they could have had a meeting.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-09-2008, 05:29 PM

All I know is Elizabeth is still with him, and hers is the only opinion that matters. A lot of people are more offended on her behalf than she is.

DSYoungEsq

08-09-2008, 05:35 PM

I don't buy that at all. First, unless she is missing a few brain cells, she would know to be quiet about the situation. What could Edwards possibly be telling her in person, without his wife knowing, that he, or one of his aides couldn't accomplish over the phone?

I'm with Sam, here. No way was he there for 5 hours, ending at 2:45am, and not up to something.

When was the last time you were out and about at 3am, in a non-emergency situation, and doing something positive? Me neither..
Regularly, actually. I don't find being up at 3 am an unusual thing. ;)

And, as I point out, if he was there boinking her, you'd think the Enquirer would have said something to that effect. So far as I know, they haven't even hinted that...

Marley23

08-09-2008, 05:39 PM

Except that he was caught coming out of the other woman's apartment just a few days ago, and admitted that his wife didn't know anything about it.

Sounds to me like he was cheating on her while she was dying.
Supposedly the affair happened almost two years ago, and nobody's said anything to the contrary so far.

tomndebb

08-09-2008, 06:46 PM

Kindly insert your broad brush into your nether aperture, Sam; . . .Back off on the personal insults in GD.

= = =

EVERYONE: If you have to continue the utterly pointless discussion regarding which partisan group includes (or consists of) the greater hypocrites, take it to the Pit. Which of your fellow posters have (in your not so humble opinion) embraced hypocrisy really has no serious bearing on the topic of the OP.

[ /Moderating ]

Leaper

08-09-2008, 06:59 PM

If you have to continue the utterly pointless discussion regarding which partisan group includes (or consists of) the greater hypocrites, take it to the Pit.

For clarification: I was just about to post about a prominent (conservative) blogger's commentary on the whole Edwards thing. Is that on-topic, or does the above apply to this also? I ask because I don't know whether you meant "partisan group" to apply beyond SDMB posters.

EddyTeddyFreddy

08-09-2008, 07:59 PM

Sorry, Tom. Won't do it again.

Magiver

08-09-2008, 08:57 PM

Supposedly the affair happened almost two years ago, and nobody's said anything to the contrary so far. No that's not accurate. The affair started 2 years ago. He specifically avoided the question as to when it ended.

Magiver

08-09-2008, 08:59 PM

All I know is Elizabeth is still with him, and hers is the only opinion that matters. A lot of people are more offended on her behalf than she is. OMG, you think Elizabeth is less emotionally involved than anybody on this board? Wow.

Marley23

08-09-2008, 09:01 PM

No that's not accurate. The affair started 2 years ago. He specifically avoided the question as to when it ended.
I thought I heard at one point that it lasted two months, but if he didn't say that, obviously that's different.

Linear Crack

08-09-2008, 10:19 PM

I guess Enquiring Minds will never know.........

Edwards ex-mistress rules out paternity test (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080810/ap_on_el_pr/edwards_hunter;_ylt=Ag6Og86ugGn43DpmpqbvXmNh24cA)

"Rielle is therefore making no statement now or in the future," Gordon said in a statement. "Furthermore, Rielle will not participate in DNA testing or any other invasion of her or her daughter's privacy now or in the future."

...or will they?

As far as the OP goes; Edwards judgement here is somewhere left of Bizzaro World, and I don't think the party would want that kind of baggage so close to the Obamanator.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-09-2008, 10:34 PM

He said it ended in 2006.

DSYoungEsq

08-09-2008, 10:39 PM

He said it ended in 2006.
mmmm did he actually say that? I think the point being made is that, while that seems to be the implication of the written statement, he has refused to answer this direct question when posed, such as last night on the ABC program. :dubious:

tomndebb

08-09-2008, 10:44 PM

For clarification: I was just about to post about a prominent (conservative) blogger's commentary on the whole Edwards thing. Is that on-topic, or does the above apply to this also? I ask because I don't know whether you meant "partisan group" to apply beyond SDMB posters.If you want to link to a blogger commenting on whether the current scandal will or will not damage Edwards's political carrer (or the candidacy of any future Democrat running for presidsent), feel free.
If it is simply one more tu quoque where some partisan swings the beam in his eye at all the motes of hypocrisy in the eyes of his foes, spare us or post it in the Pit.

[ /Modding ]

Leaper

08-10-2008, 12:17 AM

OK, well, I'll give it a shot...

Taking a look at the stories over at Instapundit (http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/) (whom I'm taking as relatively typical of the conservative blogger who's not completely Coulterish over-the-edge) today (8/9), there seems to be a big theme: that the MSM was ignoring the whole Edwards thing (thus "manipulating" the political process) until the admission forced them to cover it. There are three or four entries today on this theme (mostly linking to others; this particular blog tends to be more about rounding up the opinions of others that the author agrees with).

I'm not sure why there would've been any "story suppression" going on, unless the theory is that the MSM was trying their best to keep Edwards as a possible VP nominee (thus bringing this back to the OP). Hmm.

Magiver

08-10-2008, 09:16 PM

He said it ended in 2006. Cite? He said it started in 2006 and when asked when it ended he ducked the question.

WOODRUFF (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=5544981&page=1):… How long did it last and when exactly did it end?

JOHN EDWARDS: Well, here's the way I feel about this Bob. I think that my family is entitled to every detail. They've been told every detail. Elizabeth knows absolutely everything. I think beyond the basics, the fact that I made this mistake and I'm responsible for it and no one else. I think that's where it stops in terms of the public because I think everything else is within my family and those privacy boundaries ought to be respected.

The correct answer would have been 2 months or some short number but he ducked it.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-10-2008, 09:26 PM

Upon review, it was Elizabeth who said he'd told her about it in 2006. I assume it was over before he told her. None of us have any reason to believe it lasted longer. or that he fathered that girl's baby, nor is it any of our business. I think it's time to step away from the peep hole now. This show is over.

Magiver

08-10-2008, 09:31 PM

Upon review, it was Elizabeth who said he'd told her about it in 2006. I assume it was over before he told her. None of us have any reason to believe it lasted longer.Yes, certainly no reason to doubt his word.

But he can still sue the NE for deliberately producing a false picture of a child that isn't his. The hotel will certainly have a picture of him on camera wearing the shirt he described versus the picture that was published. And his mistress can sue for the same thing.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-10-2008, 09:38 PM

Yes, certainly no reason to doubt his word.

But he can still sue the NE for deliberately producing a false picture of a child that isn't his. The hotel will certainly have a picture of him on camera wearing the shirt he described versus the picture that was published. And his mistress can sue for the same thing.
He can sue, but there's virtually no chance he can collect damages. He would have to prove not only that the kids is not his (impossible if the mother won't submit the kid to a DNA test), but that the Enquirer KNEW it wasn't his kid and made the claim anyway. That part is impossible.

Not that any of this is any of our business. If it upsets you, don't write his name in for President.

Magiver

08-10-2008, 10:42 PM

He can sue, but there's virtually no chance he can collect damages. Thus speaketh DIO, keeper of future events.

Not that any of this is any of our business. It's my business if it involves the VP role. If it bothers you, right his name in.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-10-2008, 10:51 PM

It doesn't involve the VP role. Edwards was never even a frontrunner for that. The rumors were that he wanted the AG spot. That's probably out now too, though.

Marley23

08-11-2008, 06:47 AM

But he can still sue the NE for deliberately producing a false picture of a child that isn't his.
For some reason you are not picking up on how difficult this would be - and he's clearly not going to do it, regardless.
To win a suit against the paper, he would have to prove the picture is false and the child isn't his, and then he'd have to prove they "deliberately" ran it despite knowing it's false, and harmed his reputation by doing so.
He says he's willing to take a paternity test, but Hunter says it's not happening. So I don't see how in the world he would prove anything the paper said is false. He might be able to prove that's not him in the picture, but in the grand scheme of things that doesn't mean anything.
And his mistress can sue for the same thing.
How is she being defamed here?

The bottom line is that Edwards isn't going to sue here. He has nothing to gain by doing so, particularly because he wouldn't win, and if tests proved the child is his, things would get even worse. For now, whatever the truth is, it seems he is publicly off the hook about being the father unless Hunter changes her mind.

Magiver

08-11-2008, 01:47 PM

It doesn't involve the VP role. Edwards was never even a frontrunner for that. The rumors were that he wanted the AG spot. That's probably out now too, though. Again, thus speaketh DIO, keeper of future events. You have a really bad habit of making definitive statements about things you know nothing about.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-11-2008, 02:35 PM

Again, thus speaketh DIO, keeper of future events. You have a really bad habit of making definitive statements about things you know nothing about.
You're the one who decided he was a VP candidate. From everything that's been written and reported, he was not on the shortlist, didn't want it and had expressly said he wants the AG spot instead.

Magiver

08-11-2008, 02:41 PM

You're the one who decided he was a VP candidate. From everything that's been written and reported, he was not on the shortlist, didn't want it and had expressly said he wants the AG spot instead. Yah, I just invented that he was being considered for it. :rolleyes:

Diogenes the Cynic

08-11-2008, 02:45 PM

Yah, I just invented that he was being considered for it. :rolleyes:
There is no evidence he was being considered for it.

John Mace

08-11-2008, 04:05 PM

There is no evidence he was being considered for it.
Yes there is. (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/edwards_nunn_re.html)

Diogenes the Cynic

08-11-2008, 04:38 PM

Yes there is. (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/edwards_nunn_re.html)
Ok, an undisclosed source says he was on a deep list two months ago. There's no reason to believe he was ever seriously considered (and we don't acually KNOW that he was considered at all), he was not one of the names on the reputed shortlist, and like I said, all the scuttlebutt was that he was in line for AG, not VP.

Having said all that, I still don't see how having (maybe) once been considered as a remote possibility for a VP choice makes this story newsworthy.

John Mace

08-11-2008, 05:32 PM

Ok, an undisclosed source says he was on a deep list two months ago.
Did you read the cite? The source was disclosed-- it was Caroline Kennedy and Eric Holder (Obama's VP vetting team), via Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick of Michigan

There's no reason to believe he was ever seriously considered (and we don't acually KNOW that he was considered at all), he was not one of the names on the reputed shortlist, and like I said, all the scuttlebutt was that he was in line for AG, not VP.
Can you cite this short list?

Having said all that, I still don't see how having (maybe) once been considered as a remote possibility for a VP choice makes this story newsworthy.
Can you quote the part of my link where it says he was once (maybe) a remote possibility? It says he's on the list. Period.

Diogenes the Cynic

08-11-2008, 05:59 PM

Magiver

08-11-2008, 06:59 PM

This is a stuoid thing to argue about. He wasn't one of the serious choices, but even if he had been, he's not now, so it's all moot. He remains a private citizen whose sex life is no more newsworthy than mine. I guess it's only stupid to argue about it when you're wrong. And since you were not being considered for anything, nobody cares about your sex life.

John Mace

08-11-2008, 07:05 PM

This is a stuoid thing to argue about. He wasn't one of the serious choices, but even if he had been, he's not now, so it's all moot. He remains a private citizen whose sex life is no more newsworthy than mine.
Then you shouldn't argue about it. When you cheat on your wife, it shows up on the evening news multiple nights, and you make a "heartfelt confession" on air, then your sex life will have proven to be newsworthy. But Edwards is public figure who would more than likely try and run for president again if he had the chance. Like it or not, his extra-marital sex life is newsworthy.