ADDED: This stuff is painful:
Shocked to see a reporter, and without saying anything, Edwards ran up the stairs leading from the hotel basement to the lobby. But, spotting a photographer, he doubled back into the basement. As he emerged from the stairwell, reporter Butterfield questioned him about his hookup with Rielle.Amusement.
Edwards did not answer and then ran into a nearby restroom. He stayed inside for about 15 minutes, refusing to answer questions from the NATIONAL ENQUIRER about what he was doing in the hotel. A group of hotel security men eventually escorted him from the men's room, while preventing the NATIONAL ENQUIRER reporters from following him out of the hotel....
"He was clearly surprised that we had caught him at this very late hour inside the hotel.
"Some guests up at this late hour watched the spectacle in amusement from a staircase nearby."
पोस्ट्स
६५ टिप्पण्या:
Do you suppose Edwards went to the hotel to see if he could drill himself out of the problem?
He certainly seems to have drilled himself into it.
Yeah, my very first thought when I saw the Enquirer story was how an exchange would play out between Mickey and Bob Wright on BHTV. Couldn't help it. So now I'm thinking I spend too much time listening to Bloggingheads ... even as I load up a bunch of episodes I've been hoarding in preparation for a cross-country drive.
He seems to prissy to be involved in such a situation. At least he could have had the decency to wait until his wife died. Then he and his trollop could romp around in the 28,000 square foot wonderland down in Orange county in a more guilt-neutral way. But no - he's an evolved democrat, on the short list to become VP. Hope he is selected by the chosen one. Fish, meet barrel...
"Too prissy" - my bad. As for the rest of my typos - it is late and I am tired. New puppy wakes me up early. Kind of like John Boy's new baby keeps him up. Oh, right...
Where are the voices reminding us that this is no one's else's business, but a "private" issue between John, his wife, his mistress, his children (all of them)?
Sydney Blumenthal?
Madeleine Albright?
Keith Olbermann?
Hello?
Hello?
If that's really his mistress, then Senator Edwards is truly a cheap bastard.
Just look at her hair!
He always was a sleazy lawyer with no morals (oh, I repeat myself)
I do find it strange that he picked somebody with such abused hair. I would have thought Silky would have gotten her some hair help.
I'm with reader_iam. I really look forward to it. Hi, Mickey
There is no way that Edwards was or is on anyone's short list for vice president. He wasn't before. He certainly isn't now. Obama is just being nice to him.
What a buffoon, though. I mean, really. What a total moron. The best part is that he ran away like that. Either admit it or lie. Don't run. That's like admitting it without the benefits of admission. Jesus.
Yeah, these "Edwards love child" rumours have been around for at least 2 months. I never posted on it, because after all, it was the National Enquirer.
Unfortunately, for all their hilarious misses, they do get it astonishingly right sometimes. Frank Gifford and Gary Hart come instantly to mind.
I'm guessing John Edwards was deprived emotional and physical solace for a while, as Elizabeth battles cancer again.
I think he's a mega-lightweight, and a creep, but I hope everything works out well for him and his family.
Cheers,
Victoria
Character matters. It seems that many Democrats believe that a man who hides quivering in a restroom was a good candidate for President.
Sheesh, if you get caught, at least act like a man about it.
I think any kind of person can be the sort to cheat on a spouse, there's no monopoly on that from a party perspective. It's how you react to getting caught that reflects one's character.
It seems that Edwards' character is consistent with my constant impression of him -- a whining little boy.
What fascinates me is if this dalliance would have been protected better by handlers and most of the media if he had won the nomination. Would we have had his pathetic immaturity displayed so clearly if he had people protecting him from himself?
We've dodged another bullet. Now let's see how Obama measures up with all of his handlers and press manipulation.
Pathetic behavior for a man whose sick wife battled and fought on behalf of his candidacy.
I saw the pic and thought...he's sleeping with Camilla, Prince Charles's wife?!
Victoria: It's been more than a couple of months. There was a lengthy discussion here at Althouse seven months ago, and that was by some months of speculation.
As Althouse referenced in that post by linking to Mickey, who himself did some linking ... .
It's a Democrat. Could be, who knows!
I wonder if Mickey Kaus plays with his dog's balls inappropriately? I think I might have possibly seen that or heard that out there, somewhere. Hmmph.
Wow, Garage. That was very lame. I mean, honestly. If you can't do any better than that, just quit trying.
People tend to doubt the National Enquirer, but ...
It was the National Enquirer that broke many of the details in the months-long OJ Simpson saga.
It was the National Enquirer that broke the story about Rush Limbaugh's drug addiction, and the fact that he destroyed his own hearing through chronic pain killer abuse (a known consequence).
It was the National Enquirer that broke various tidbits from the Monica Lewinsky story.
It was the National Enquirer that broke the story about the George W. Bush falling off the wagon and hitting the bottle to deal with the stress of his failed presidency.
It was the National Enquirer that first reported in 2005 that First Lady Laura Bush was threatening to divorce the president if he didn't stop drinking and take back control of the executive branch.
Most people believe some of these stories were true and others were not -- usually based on their political ideology. For example, I don't know many Republicans who believe Bush fell off the wagon, or who doubt that Edwards was screwing around on his wife.
You'd think the Enquirer would have a photograph or two. Perhaps they will be forthcoming.
So, who wants to bet that he'll divorce his wife and marry his mistress?
Peter -- He'll keep his wife and his mistress, wait for his wife to die, then eventually marry his mistress. If he divorces his wife, he loses a lot of money. If he leaves his mistress, he loses a lot of money on account of the kid.
The Enquirer story is filled with conclusions as to Edwards' mental state that would be incompetent as testimony in court and that their reporters cannot possibly ever prove, short of admissions by Edwards himself. Whether he was "nervous," whether his intention was to "avoid being seen" when entering or trying to leave the hotel, whether he was "shocked" to see reporters -- all of these are guesses and interpretations that fit the Enquirer's narative, and they sell a lot more newspapers.
The allegations that Rielle has been his mistress and that he is the true biological father of her child, however, are allegations of objective fact which certainly would tend to injury his reputation. He's a public figure, but NY Times v. Sullivan still allows public figures to sue for defamation if they can prove not only the falsity and injurious nature of the allegations, but that they were made with knowledge of, or reckless disregard concerning, their falsity.
If he sues, there will be DNA tests. He knows that. If they've been lovers and the child is his, he won't sue.
One can't safely infer that the absence of a lawsuit on his part is equivalent to an admission that the allegations are true. There are many reasons why someone may choose not to pursue a meritorious lawsuit -- obvious among them, in his case, the continuing health perils of his wife.
I'm no fan of John Edwards. I think he's a dangerous demagogue, and I hope he'll never again hold any political office. If this story ends any chance that he might be, for example, Barack Obama's Attorney General, then I'm tickled pink by that.
But I'm still not necessarily persuaded by the Enquirer. Not yet, anyway.
Seven, so Rudy and Newt had less money to lose?
Was Rudy's wife dying, Peter? I don't remember that. And your argument basically boils down to, well, some people on the right did it, too. That's not a great argument, as your mother was intimating when she asked you if you would jump off a bridge because everyone else did. Nobody is defending people who leave their spouses for trophy boyfriends and girlfriends. Except, I guess, you.
Anyway, your logic is entirely wrong, which, of course, is not surprising for someone of your political bent. People with less money to lose can leave their spouses at a lower monetary monetary cost because there is less money to be cost. This is very elemental. I'm surprised I have to explain it to you.
Beldar -- Lots of things are true even though they never get proved in a court of law. In fact, everything that is true is true independent of any court system. Your allusion to evidentiary standards in court is a useless red herring.
Wait a minute. I thought he was gay. Who changed the meme on me. I didn't get the memo. Jeeez.
You really have to pay attention. It's kinda tough when the WORLD CHAMPION NEW YORK GIANTS are starting training camp next week.
Did I mention lately that the Giants won the Super Bowl.
The Giants only won the Super Bowl because the Patriots had to stop spying on other teams. Lucky break.
Don't be a sore loserman. Next thing you know you will be blaming it on a hanging Chad Jackson.
What's my logic, Seven? I don't think I've tried to use any in this thread thus far.
No, I'm not trying to play the moral equivalency card, and I'm certainly not defending Edwards.
Without suggesting that one position is morally better than the other, I note that in the past couple decades, the prominent Democrats who were caught having affairs did not end their marriages in order to marry their affair partners. Hart and Clinton are still married to their respective spouses. McGreevey ended his marriage, but he did not marry his affair partner.
Several prominent Republicans, however, have divorced and gone on to marry their affair partners. Some more than once. I've yet to learn of one prominent Dem who has done that. Seems kind of odd to me, as this sort of thing happens throughout our culture.
The staying married thing seems so retro.
"I wonder if Mickey Kaus plays with his dog's balls inappropriately? I think I might have possibly seen that or heard that out there, somewhere. Hmmph."
Garage you mistook Mickey Kaus for RH Hardin. Sharpen up.
I'm amused. Mr. Edwards is not a nice man, he is not a good man, he would not be a good president or a good vice president. He's a pretty little parasite who made his fortune suing innocent people because he could get away with it. He's pushing a class warfare/envy-heavy agenda. He wants to ruin our healthcare system.
And he acts superior to the rest of us. Not so superior now, are you? You goddamn worm. You don't get to be maximum ultra leader. You don't get to be president for 8-10 years, and remake this country in your image. Boo hoo.
Today is a good day for America. Do you remember how much glee the left took in Larry Craig's private anguish? This doesn't even begin to make up for that. More, please!
Maybe he loves her and his wife is a bitch.
Was he getting counseling in the restroom from Jesse Jackson?
Was he tapping his toes?
Was Rielle the woman behind this brilliant ad?
What will happen to Little Jack and Emma Claire? Tune in tomorrow for another episode of 'As the Stomach Turns.'
If you're going to meet up with a mistress, LA is the last place you should pick. There are thousands of people in that city trying to see someone important. Some even have cameras, and if not a camera, a story to sell.
Why on earth would we take the National Enquirer at face value?
That said, if it is true, then as painful as "this" is, it isn't nearly painful enough for Edwards. He would be the lowest of the low.
I refuse to condemn him to that appraisal without smoking gun evidence, and this ain't it.
Only CBS is less trustworthy than the National Enquirer. It is however just about as reliable as the AP news service (whose every story requires translation via the UltrSecret Lefty Decoder Ring ...only $14.95).
So is it true? Mmmmmm ....could be!
I suggest, rather than admitting it, he begin by talking about dragging a ten dollar bill through a trailer park and then bite his lip, saying "I did not have sex with that woman." It might just work.
All this goes to prove is that Iowa is the most gullible state in the union.
The Wandering Penis syndrome brings down another politician.
How come a politician's mistress is usually unattractive? Isn't there an American male politician who can score a mistress as attractive as Carla Bruni?
Not trying hard enough. Or maybe politicians are the B-list for prospective mistresses.
Anyhow, is anyone surprised that John Edwards has a mistress? His career consists of being a self-aggrandizing scum, in court and in the Senate.
How come a politician's mistress is usually unattractive
'Washington is Hollywood for ugly people.'
It's not The National Enquirer. It's The NATIONAL ENQUIRER.
But yes -- does this mean that he's not gay?
Sad story--looks to me like the National Inquirer can produce any number of witness and photos; so those who are doubting the Inquirer story probably believed Bill Clinton when he wagged his finger at us--but that, to me, is tangential.
This is just sad for Mrs. Edwards and his family. Edwards if genuinely a dirtbag.
Wurly said...
Ann,
When you write that this is painful, do you mean it causes pain due to uncontrollable, sustainted laughter? That's the pain its causing me.
I think painful laughter at Edwards,
Pain, sorrow and sympathy for his wife and family. I don't care for Elizabeth much, but nobody deserves this.
I really dislike Edwards' politics, but how can anyone gloat over something like this? As Ruth Anne alluded, it's stomach turning -- and sad -- for everyone involved.
And if it turns out to be true and gets any play in NC, I think he's done.
Aside from my observation, noted by others here, that she looks something like Camilla Parker, my first thought was to wonder if my neighbor would finally remove his Kerry-Edwards bumper sticker.
There are few things more vile than cheating on a woman when she is either pregnant or ill. Cheating on the dying must reserve oneself a special place in hell.
I hope a divorce lawyer channels his unclaimed infant in the trial, a fitting retribution for his courtroom tactics.
Seven Machos wrote, Beldar -- Lots of things are true even though they never get proved in a court of law. In fact, everything that is true is true independent of any court system. Your allusion to evidentiary standards in court is a useless red herring.
I didn't claim, and don't, that only things proved in court are true. Red herring, meet straw man.
What I argued, and still believe, is that much of what the Enquirer has put forth as "facts" aren't facts, but opinions and characterizations that they haven't proved -- and can't.
What they're left with -- Edwards being seen at the same hotel as Rielle, late at night -- they use as evidence to support an inference: They were having sex that night. And they want to use that inference to support another: They had sex previously. And another: The child is his.
Maybe the Enquirer has more proof than they've yet revealed to support those broader factual conclusions that they want you to infer. Okay, that's yet another guess. How many are we up to now?
Courtrooms are places where factual assertions get tested. That may happen here. It may not. But the methods and standards that are used to text factual assertions in courtrooms are used there because they're effective at sorting out proven facts from postulated ones.
So far, the Enquirer has shown us nothing but speculation on the key issues.
And they've dressed those up in obvious speculation (like what Edwards' inner thoughts were at various moments) -- something which both in courtrooms and in news reporting is often an indication that a story is weak. I find that speculation to actually undercut the Enquirer's credibility, rather than enhance it.
Could those key issues be proven directly? Oh, sure, in theory they could. You could produce DNA tests showing Edwards' parentage of the child. You could produce an eyewitness who, unknown to the couple, observed them having sex.
Could those key issues be proven circumstantially, by creating a more compelling inference? Oh, sure, in theory you could. You could negate every other possible reason why Edwards might have been in that hotel, or you could produce a blue dress from her closet or hotel bedroom sheets stained with his semen.
But the Enquirer hasn't done any of that, either. They're relying on us to make the inferential jump: Both in the hotel, must have had sex, kid must be his.
Maybe that is true. I wouldn't surprise me if it's true. It wouldn't surprise me for him and for her to lie about it even if it were true.
But it hasn't been proved true, not to my satisfaction anyway, because I actually give a damn about what "proof" is.
If you don't, that's your privilege too.
What they're left with -- Edwards being seen at the same hotel as Rielle, late at night -- they use as evidence to support an inference: They were having sex that night. And they want to use that inference to support another: They had sex previously. And another: The child is his.
You're absolutely right. Those are big inferences drawn from little evidence.
At the same time, a married man leaving a hotel at 2:40 am and ducking into a restroom to avoid reporters naturally raises eyebrows and suspicions. For all the times men in similar circumstances have claimed, "I was only trying to counsel a poor, lonely woman," there are many fewer where that turns out to have been the truth.
He was probably taking her deposition.
Among other positions.
With young children and an ill wife at home.
Cheating on the dying must reserve oneself a special place in hell.
Ah, Mr. Edwards, at last. We've been expecting you. Let me show your room; you're in the Gingrich Wing -- it's down a few flights, so watch your step.
Have we seen an Edwards denial of this story yet?
Edwards is the dog that did not bark in this scene.
it's down a few flights, so watch your step.
I think you'll be very comfortable here. Most of your former colleagues have already arrived.
Thankfully, since all things are relative and morality is no longer allowed to intrude on the public sphere, Edwards may not be affected professionally at all. Like Gingrich, he'll go on to a lucrative career.
My my. No residents of glass houses here, eh my fellow commentators? What a spotless group. And I'm sure that there are no plank filled eyes either. Obviously.
BillHall,
I suppose you were equally outraged by the comedy resulting from Larry Craig's escapades?
It's the job of the citizenry to point out when sanctimonious pricks like Edwards get caught with their pants down. It helops keep the government kudzu down a bit.
There are two Americas, those that cheat on their dying wives, and those that don't.
Hi Pogo -
I disagree with the comparison. Craig held himself up for ridicule by his implausible denials.
Edwards may yet elevate himself to a Craig level, but he hasn't done so yet.
Yeah, I can see how John Edwards would talk about two Americas, too bad he didn't mention his two families.
you're in the Gingrich Wing
It is a bit of a stretch to say that Gingrich cheated on a dying woman, considering that they separated eight years ago and she's still alive.
But personally I don't see how cheating on a dying spouse is any worse than cheating on a young and healthy spouse. It is "in sickness and in health", you know.
How come a politician's mistress is usually unattractive?
Because attractive women can do better. Boinking a politician is about a half-step up from boinking a door-to-door salesman.
Craig held himself up for ridicule by his implausible denials.
I dunno. Hiding in the toilet after sex seems just as ridiculous as flirting in one to find sex.
madisonman,
Now I can't stop thinking of that silly joke -- guy gets to hell, and Satan takes him on a tour to choose which room he'll inhabit for his eternity of suffering.
Satan opens the door to the first room and there are a bunch of people, standing in shit up to their necks. Guy says "oh but no; show me another room!"
Satan takes him to door number two, and it opens onto a roomful of folks standing in shit up to their nostrils. "Oh, please me show me another!"
Satan leads him to the door of the third room where he sees a group of people standing in shit up to the knees, drinking coffee and eating pastries. "This is the one! I'll take it." Satan nods and ushers him in the door. As he turns to leave, Satan yells out, "Coffee break's over! Everyone back on your heads!"
Why I love Beth, in a nutshell ... .
She makes me laugh, and then know that I could disagree heartily with her, even with occasional hard feeling, in person. And then we could go make soup, or fix some broken item, or some sort of project, and then go hear some music or see art. And then argue over stuff again. And then sincerely hug, in parting, to go off into our own different, lives, even if we never crossed paths again.
Yeah, that's what I like about Beth, and a small (yet strikingly diverse) handful of other (different) people I've encountered at Althouse, over time.
Thanks, Althouse.
Yes, thanks, Althouse.
And thanks, reader_iam; that would be a great day - arguing including.
And thanks to you too.
gee....
i wonder if hillary is thinking, "typical! now i know why that cheater did not want to endorse me."
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा