0
   

Scratch John Edwards Off List of Dem Veep Possibles

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 01:07 pm
This story has been confirmed, though he says the baby isn't his.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5441195&page=1

Quote:
John Edwards repeatedly lied during his Presidential campaign about an extra-marital affair with a novice film-maker, the former Senator admitted to ABC News today.
Edwards
Democratic presidential candidate former U.S. Senator John Edwards (D-NC) speaks to supporters during a campaign event at the Keene State University in Keene, New Hampshire January 6, 2008.
(Carlos Barria / Reuters)
More Photos

In an interview for broadcast tonight on Nightline, Edwards told ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff he did have an affair with 42-year old Rielle Hunter, but said that he did not love her.

Edwards also denied he was the father of Hunter's baby girl, Frances Quinn, although the one-time Democratic Presidential candidate said he has not taken a paternity test.

Edwards said he knew he was not the father based on timing of the baby's birth on February 27, 2008. He said his affair ended too soon for him to have been the father.

A former campaign aide, Andrew Young, has said he was the father of the child.


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 01:08 pm
Quote:
Edwards said he knew he was not the father based on timing of the baby's birth on February 27, 2008. He said his affair ended too soon for him to have been the father.


Last time I checked, it only takes once.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 01:17 pm
Well dang.

Elizabeth knew, evidently. But didn't know about the meeting (which he also confirmed). (And why did he do a stupid thing like that if the affair was over and it wasn't his baby?)
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 01:44 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
This story has been confirmed, though he says the baby isn't his.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5441195&page=1

Quote:
John Edwards repeatedly lied during his Presidential campaign about an extra-marital affair with a novice film-maker, the former Senator admitted to ABC News today.
Edwards
Democratic presidential candidate former U.S. Senator John Edwards (D-NC) speaks to supporters during a campaign event at the Keene State University in Keene, New Hampshire January 6, 2008.
(Carlos Barria / Reuters)
More Photos

In an interview for broadcast tonight on Nightline, Edwards told ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff he did have an affair with 42-year old Rielle Hunter, but said that he did not love her.

Edwards also denied he was the father of Hunter's baby girl, Frances Quinn, although the one-time Democratic Presidential candidate said he has not taken a paternity test.

Edwards said he knew he was not the father based on timing of the baby's birth on February 27, 2008. He said his affair ended too soon for him to have been the father.

A former campaign aide, Andrew Young, has said he was the father of the child.


Cycloptichorn


Hmmm... not a lot of outrage there Cyc.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 01:45 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
This story has been confirmed, though he says the baby isn't his.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5441195&page=1

Quote:
John Edwards repeatedly lied during his Presidential campaign about an extra-marital affair with a novice film-maker, the former Senator admitted to ABC News today.
Edwards
Democratic presidential candidate former U.S. Senator John Edwards (D-NC) speaks to supporters during a campaign event at the Keene State University in Keene, New Hampshire January 6, 2008.
(Carlos Barria / Reuters)
More Photos

In an interview for broadcast tonight on Nightline, Edwards told ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff he did have an affair with 42-year old Rielle Hunter, but said that he did not love her.

Edwards also denied he was the father of Hunter's baby girl, Frances Quinn, although the one-time Democratic Presidential candidate said he has not taken a paternity test.

Edwards said he knew he was not the father based on timing of the baby's birth on February 27, 2008. He said his affair ended too soon for him to have been the father.

A former campaign aide, Andrew Young, has said he was the father of the child.


Cycloptichorn


Hmmm... not a lot of outrage there Cyc.


I am pretty pissed off about it. It just isn't what the Dems need right now, and thank everything one can thank that he didn't win Iowa!

I think it's low behavior, and puts him right up there with that scumbag McCain; neither can keep their dick in their pants when confronted with easy tail.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 01:48 pm
Better. I even appreciated how you got a slam against McCain in there.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 01:50 pm
Quote:
I am pretty pissed off about it. It just isn't what the Dems need right now, and thank everything one can thank that he didn't win Iowa!

I think it's low behavior, and puts him right up there with that scumbag McCain; neither can keep their dick in their pants when confronted with easy tail.

Cycloptichorn


But I seem to remember you getting alot more worked up when it was the repubs doing it.
Why is this time any different?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 01:51 pm
eh, He has given equal time. I don't see a need to beat the dead horse about this any longer.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 01:51 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Better. I even appreciated how you got a slam against McCain in there.


I rate all adulterers the same: pretty low.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 02:14 pm
sozobe wrote:
Well dang.

Elizabeth knew, evidently. But didn't know about the meeting (which he also confirmed). (And why did he do a stupid thing like that if the affair was over and it wasn't his baby?)


I guess that was him in the pictures after all. Your question is the same as mine, why did he go to see her secretly in the middle of the night, if its not his child and Young has already said publicly that it was his?

Doesnt make sense.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 03:33 pm
John Edwards wrote:
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS
August 8, 2008

Chapel Hill, North Carolina

In 2006, I made a serious error in judgment and conducted myself in a way that was disloyal to my family and to my core beliefs. I recognized my mistake and I told my wife that I had a liaison with another woman, and I asked for her forgiveness. Although I was honest in every painful detail with my family, I did not tell the public. When a supermarket tabloid told a version of the story, I used the fact that the story contained many falsities to deny it. But being 99% honest is no longer enough.

I was and am ashamed of my conduct and choices, and I had hoped that it would never become public. With my family, I took responsibility for my actions in 2006 and today I take full responsibility publicly. But that misconduct took place for a short period in 2006. It ended then. I am and have been willing to take any test necessary to establish the fact that I am not the father of any baby, and I am truly hopeful that a test will be done so this fact can be definitively established. I only know that the apparent father has said publicly that he is the father of the baby. I also have not been engaged in any activity of any description that requested, agreed to or supported payments of any kind to the woman or to the apparent father of the baby.

It is inadequate to say to the people who believed in me that I am sorry, as it is inadequate to say to the people who love me that I am sorry. In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic. If you want to beat me up -- feel free. You cannot beat me up more than I have already beaten up myself. I have been stripped bare and will now work with everything I have to help my family and others who need my help.

I have given a complete interview on this matter and having done so, will have nothing more to say.
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 03:41 pm
Re: Edwards' role at party's convention threatened
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Edwards apparently is sacrificing his own political future to protect his dear friend Andrew Young. Edwards has a strong marriage. Young's may not be as strong. ---BBB


My guess is Edwards was instead, hoping that Young would vocally, and hopefully with proof of paternity in hand, cover for him. When Young failed to do so, the pressure eventually forced him to tell the truth about the affair. The odds are that Edwards is the father as well...but with the true Edwards now revealed, I'm betting no paternity test will ever be made.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 03:54 pm
Instead of 'sacrificing himself' as BBB stated, Edwards was asking us to believe:

a. he didn't have an affair with Hunter

b. Hunter's child was not his

Now that he has admitted that he lied through his teeth regarding a. why should anybody believe him on b. ?
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 03:56 pm
And he's still trying to mac it off with the "I didn't love her" routine. And even worse, throwing out some unholy crap about his wife's cancer being in remission at the time, as if that makes it any better.
What a piece of **** he is.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 04:02 pm
Yeah, I'm not happy with the fact that he had an affair on a few levels, but I can't say I'm happy with his response either. "99% honest"??? C'mon.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 04:09 pm
Well, this sure validates a lot of Occum Bill's doubts about Edwards' character.

I sure feel bad for Elizabeth.


...and I hope there is a paternity test. He should not get off so easy as to say "I messed up, but only a little", and have anyone believe it.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 04:16 pm
sozobe wrote:
John Edwards wrote:
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS
August 8, 2008

Chapel Hill, North Carolina

In 2006, I made a serious error in judgment and conducted myself in a way that was disloyal to my family and to my core beliefs. I recognized my mistake and I told my wife that I had a liaison with another woman, and I asked for her forgiveness. Although I was honest in every painful detail with my family, I did not tell the public. When a supermarket tabloid told a version of the story, I used the fact that the story contained many falsities to deny it. But being 99% honest is no longer enough.

I was and am ashamed of my conduct and choices, and I had hoped that it would never become public. With my family, I took responsibility for my actions in 2006 and today I take full responsibility publicly. But that misconduct took place for a short period in 2006. It ended then. I am and have been willing to take any test necessary to establish the fact that I am not the father of any baby, and I am truly hopeful that a test will be done so this fact can be definitively established. I only know that the apparent father has said publicly that he is the father of the baby. I also have not been engaged in any activity of any description that requested, agreed to or supported payments of any kind to the woman or to the apparent father of the baby.

It is inadequate to say to the people who believed in me that I am sorry, as it is inadequate to say to the people who love me that I am sorry. In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic. If you want to beat me up -- feel free. You cannot beat me up more than I have already beaten up myself. I have been stripped bare and will now work with everything I have to help my family and others who need my help.

I have given a complete interview on this matter and having done so, will have nothing more to say.


Kind of arrogant, don't you think? Probably plays well with those who worship him, but not so much everyone else, and certainly not with the press that can still hurt him. (Remember Gary Hart?)

He lied about having the affair but we're to belive that he's not lying about being the kid's father? Oh what a tangled web we weave...

Apparently the beating he gave himself didn't prevent him from running for president (or from seeing the woman and her baby again). The beating he will take from the press is going to have a more disabling effect in terms of his political career.

At least he admits to having been egocentric and narcissistic. The thing is he was so well before the affair and still is --- although this public beating might take him down a peg.

Since he and the mother can control whether or not there is a legitimate paternity test, we'll probably never see one, but it remains to be seen if he has been paying her support or has arranged for it. Woe unto him if he's lying here and the press can find him out.

I'm not sure why it's in anyway a lesser trangression if he's not the father. I take that back, it can understand why his wife and family might find it more horrible if there was a love child to stand as living testimony of his infidelity, but for anyone else? He had an affair with the woman, and if he didn't father the baby it's only due to luck and the willful insistance (by one of the two) on a contraceptive device.

Of course he's just a flawed human being like all the rest of us and he's hardly the only man to cheat on his wife, but he is one of the incredibly small number of human beings who runs for the office of POTUS, and he clearly affected a personna of righteousness during his bid. He was so worried about the poor that he insisted Obama and Clinton keep them in mind while they duked it out after his withdrawal from the race. And yet he wasn't so worried about his wife and children that he could insist on his Johnson remaining inside his $200 silk shorts.

His entire career as a lawyer and politician has been one of making hay (and money and power) on a facade of caring for the poor.

It's his self-righteous hypocricy, not his submission to the temptations of the flesh, that make him the scum-bag he is.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 04:18 pm
Quote:
Kind of arrogant, don't you think? Probably plays well with those who worship him


who, your windbagness, do you consider a "worshipper" of Edwards?
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 04:38 pm
I remain confused - re the hotel visit, for one thing.

On his telling the truth now, possible. I understand not thinking he is; I presently think it is some of the truth.

I still think it's none of our business, though I get the hypocrisy charge. It's a kind of catch 22 for politicians in this american puritan culture. They say "no, I didn't" in instinctive self defense to a question that shouldn't be asked in the first place.. kind of like we're all four years old, and sometimes I think we are. We "feed" the tabloid culture, the scandal hunger/thrill.

I'm sorry we in the US care so very much about marital fidelity in the face of all the other matters of import re who would be our president. This is not to say that I don't generally regard marital fidelity well. But not all great men and women stay within the hopscotch lines. Lie detector tests for all candidates about everything ever?

On Gary Hart, I brought him up in this regard a long time ago. I think we lost a good man over that rigamarole, although it's been a while, and I'd have to review to make sure I mean that.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Aug, 2008 04:42 pm
ossobuco wrote:
I remain confused - re the hotel visit, for one thing.

On his telling the truth now, possible. I understand not thinking he is; I presently think it is some of the truth.

I still think it's none of our business, though I get the hypocrisy charge. It's a kind of catch 22 for politicians in this american puritan culture. They say "no, I didn't" in instinctive self defense to a question that shouldn't be asked in the first place.. kind of like we're all four years old, and sometimes I think we are.

I'm sorry we in the US care so very much about marital fidelity in the face of all the other matters of import re who would be our president. This is not to say that I don't generally regard marital fidelity well. But not all great men and women stay within the hopscotch lines. Lie detector tests for all candidates about everything ever?

On Gary Hart, I brought him up in this regard a long time ago. I think we lost a good man over that rigamarole, although it's been a while, and I'd have to review to make sure I mean that.


It's our business, because this sort of thing makes an ideal lever to use against a sitting politician. It's happened before. Edwards is a scumbag for two reasons: first, for cheating on his wife, and second, for running for President KNOWING that this was out there, waiting to be revealed. He could have ruined the whole mess for the Dems this year; I have nothing but scorn for his terrible choices.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 11:41:37