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.
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.
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…
Supposedly the affair happened almost two years ago, and nobody’s said anything to the contrary so far.
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 ]
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.
Sorry, Tom. Won’t do it again.
No that’s not accurate. The affair started 2 years ago. He specifically avoided the question as to when it ended.
OMG, you think Elizabeth is less emotionally involved than anybody on this board? Wow.
I thought I heard at one point that it lasted two months, but if he didn’t say that, obviously that’s different.
I guess Enquiring Minds will never know…
Edwards ex-mistress rules out paternity test
“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.
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:
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 ]
OK, well, I’ll give it a shot…
Taking a look at the stories over at 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.
Cite? He said it started in 2006 and when asked when it ended he ducked the question.
WOODRUFF:… 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.
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.
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.