The John Edwards Affair

Posted by Enrique on 07.31.2008

Your daddy, that’s who



For sheer delicious intrigue, there's nothing like a political sex scandal. We all love the rush of schadenfreude that comes from watching the public humiliation of a professional politician. Of course, after the initial euphoria, we settle down and consider the dreadful consequences. It was fun to have a laugh at Larry Craig when he was caught soliciting sodomy in an airport toilet, but in the end we were given pause by his tragic humanity – surely we can all sympathize with the inner torment of a man brought up to believe his natural urges were unacceptable. Likewise, it was fun to have a laugh at Eliot Spitzer's insatiable appetite for high-priced escorts, but we pitied his wife and children.

It's fun to have a laugh at former Senator John Edwards right now. So let's get on with it. As you may be aware, John Edwards is currently facing allegations that he fathered an extra-marital child with a former campaign staffer last year. Actually, there's a chance you're not aware – the story was broken by the National Enquirer, which doesn't have the strongest journalistic reputation. But they got the "Rush Limbaugh Pops Pills" story right, so maybe they're like a stopped clock. For our story this week, let's examine the scurrilous and sumptuous charges against Edwards, and pose the question, "Why was John Edwards at The Other Woman's hotel last week if he's not her baby daddy?" Enquiring minds want to know…

The story so far…



According to Enquirer, it all began in late 2006, when Rielle Hunter's production company was contracted by Edwards' staff to make campaign videos. Apparently the two worked closely together for a few months, and an alleged romance blossomed. You can read the long version here, but these are the main plot twists in handy list form:

1. In October, the Enquirer ran an article alleging Edwards was having an affair with an unnamed campaign staffer.

2. Edwards, in the midst of a presidential campaign that would culminate in a 2nd place Iowa caucus finish, denied charges of adultery.

3. Hunter issued a statement to a left-leaning blog denying her involvement with Edwards, even though she hadn't actually been named in the Enquirer article.

4. Hunter relocated to North Carolina, within walking distance of Edwards' national campaign headquarters.

5. In December, Enquirer reporters confronted a very pregnant Hunter as she left her OB/GYN's office.

6. In a phone call to the Enquirer, Edwards' lawyer denied that the candidate was the father of Hunter's child.

7. A day after that phone call, another former Edwards staffer named Andrew Young came forward and claimed he was the father.

You'll notice a glaring omission in the above list – "Edwards sues the National Enquirer for libel." Edwards is the single most powerful trial lawyer in America. You'd think he'd set an army of malevolent attorneys on the Enquirer for publishing such contemptible falsehoods. And he still might, since the Enquirer uncovered even more (alleged) naughtiness just last week! Read all about it. You're not going to believe this, but apparently Edwards had a secret meeting with Hunter and the baby at a Los Angeles hotel in the wee hours of the morning! And when Edwards saw Enquirer reporters on the scene, he ran away and hid in the toilet for 15 minutes before hotel security escorted him from the building. Ooh la la!

It's almost too luscious to be true, isn't it? As of this writing, the Enquirer hasn't released any photos of the Edwards confrontation, which doesn't exactly enhance their story's credibility. If only a respected news organization could confirm some of the Enquirer's facts…Can anyone think of a media organization that might be interested in publicizing salacious rumors about a Democrat's sex life? FOX NEWS ALERT! America's number one news channel reports, we decide:

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.

"What are they saying about me?" the guard said Edwards asked.

"His face just went totally white," the guard said, when Edwards was told the reporters were shouting out questions about Edwards and Rielle Hunter, a woman the National Enquirer says is the mother of his child.

In fairness to Edwards, it's entirely possible that Andrew Young is the father of Hunter's baby, and this whole thing is just a tabloid-fueled misunderstanding. I'm sure he was at her hotel because…oh hell, what other explanation is there? As long as Mr. Ninth Degree Black Belt Trial Lawyer hasn't sued the Enquirer into bankruptcy, Edwards hasn't done anything to earn the benefit of doubt. Even so, the American MSM has politely chosen to ignore the whole thing. The British media, on the other hand, have their own standards of journalistic ethics. This week, the Sunday Times of London reported on the nuance of the U.S. media's editorial judgment :

Tony Pierce, editor of the Los Angeles Times, issued an edict to the paper's own bloggers to stay off the subject. "Because the only source has been the National Enquirer, we have decided not to cover the rumours or salacious speculations," he wrote.

Mickey Kaus, a blogger for Slate magazine, leaked the memo. He noted: "This was a sensational scandal that the Los Angeles Times and other mainstream papers passionately did not want to uncover when Edwards was a formal candidate and now that the Enquirer seems to have done the job for them it looks like they want everyone to shut up while they fail to uncover it again."

The New York Times has not deigned to touch the story, although it recently ran thousands of words on a relationship between McCain and a female lobbyist, which appeared to be based more on innuendo than fact.

I believe that's one of the many reasons people love to hate the NYT. It's not that they're biased; it's that their bias makes them prone to rank unprofessionalism. The MSM sure seems to be dropping the ball by ignoring this Edwards saga altogether – there's clearly a market for this developing story. It's sensational, it's lurid, and it gives us the opportunity to wallow in John Edwards' humiliation. And wallow we shall…

After all, John Edwards is the absolute epitome of the sleazy, duplicitous trial lawyer. This is a man who made himself rich by manipulating vulnerable people. Prior to his undistinguished U.S. Senate career, Edwards earned big bucks by suing doctors for not performing cesarean sections in cases where women bore children with cerebral palsy. At the exact moment these unfortunate women were grappling with the prospect of raising children with physical disabilities, John Edwards showed up and said, "You know what? How about we sue your doctor and the hospital? It's their fault your baby has CP." As a result, doctors now perform many more C-sections than necessary to avoid lawsuits – 28% of all U.S. births in 2003 were by C-section, compared to 6% in 1970. (Source: John Stossel) And yet, there's been no corresponding decrease in the rate of babies born with CP. John Edwards earned million-dollar fees for perpetrating this C-section fraud, among other boffo malpractice lawsuits.

Edwards wrote the book on being a sanctimonious bullshit artist. It's nice to see the bullshit finally catching up to him. If you have any pity, save it for Edwards' cancer-stricken wife Elizabeth. Don't waste it on the miserable wretch himself. Until new information comes to light, let's enjoy the image of Edwards cowering in that hotel bathroom, terrified at the thought of the whole world seeing him for what he truly is. Warms my heart.