I really liked Edwards.

I am quite disappointed in the whole thing, but I'm watching it unravel, and the explanation and aftermath of Edwards and the mistress seem to be very interestingly choreographed.

I am noticing now how carefully Edwards is weaving the confession. He is making a huge point of saying that he did NOT continue the affair into 2007. I'm assuming this is so that he is "simply" depicted as a married man who had an affair, and is not seen in the worse light: as a cheating husband who KNEW that his wife's cancer had come back while he carried on a long-term relationship that produced a child. It seems important for him to make this distinction.

My theory right now, sadly, is that he is covering up lies with more lies. Edwards is likely the father of that little baby. But he wants to look like he *wants* the paternity test to exonerate himself. I wonder whether he might be paying off that ex-mistress in a huge way to come off as if SHE is the one saying no. He has a lot to lose if the American public sees that he fathered a child outside of his marriage to a devoted, cancer-stricken wife.

I definitely don't want to be right. But this seems too convenient for Edwards. He obviously wants to define this affair in the most benign way possible. And his mistress can surely be paid off, or lured into saying what he needs her to say (especially if she is in love with him). If it all comes out in the end, he can say he did this to protect his wife, who had suffered enough.

This is going to be interesting, yet extremely painful, to see as it unfolds...

__________________
"The errors of faith are better than the best thoughts of unbelief." - Thomas Russell

I watched his interview on Nightline, and it did indeed seem like he was using carefully crafted statements, even in his seemingly vehement denials. It made me sick enough to my stomach that I didn't finish watching it. He just wasn't believable. All I could envision was his poor wife and the position this put her in. Initially his explanation as to why she wasn't on with him sounded very noble, but then when he was asked point blank about the child it seemed to me he was trying to use just the right words to not actually be lying but to give us an entirely different impression than what the truth really *is*... whatever *is* means...

What a lowlife.

Something tells me he'll be the subject of the Body Language segment of O'R on Monday night.

A body language review would be great!!!
I still wonder why he was at that motel with his "ex"-mistress and her child. If the affair was over and the child isn't his why the heck would he take a chance like that?? Why would he do that to Elizabeth now? I think there's more to be revealed. A very sad story.
My mom always liked him too! (She's 84! I think she thinks he's cute! lol lol lol )

His explanation was that he was in the city for a fundraiser or some such event, and that the man whose car he apparently took to the hotel called him and said that he and the ex-mistress wanted to meet with Edwards. Edwards reports that he would only agree to meet with her if the man (don't recall his name) was present. He says the three of them were together and he was not alone with the ex-mistress.

He claims he called his wife the next day and told her of the meeting because she deserved to be fully informed of any time he was in contact with the ex. He said he did not call her prior to going over there.

Personally, I wasn't buying that. Prior to going he didn't know that the Enquirer would be there with cameras, ya know? He knew the photos would be published, so of course he would need to tell his wife he had been there.

When asked about the photos of the baby and whether that was him holding the baby, he really seemed Clintonian in his responses. He said (and this is a paraphrase), "I have no idea when that photo of me holding a baby was taken. I do not know if that was her baby in that photo. I have had many photos taken of myself with babies. I have run for office and that is part of what you do when you are running for office. You kiss babies many times over. I don't know if that is me in that photo, I don't know if that is her baby in that photo, and I don't know when that photo was taken. You know, they can do many things with photos to make things appear to be things they are not."

When pressed about whether it might be him and that child and if he held the child while there at all, he gave some hedgy sort of an answer about how, "Again, I cannot tell you anything about that photo or who that baby is."

It just added to the 'vibe' of dishonesty I was feeling oozing from him.

And why would he go see his ex mistress anyway? It seems to me if he was truly sorry and not involved with her and that's not his child then why would he go there? What could be so important at this point that he would risk everything if there was no involvement or child (his?) in the picture. Bill Clinton had sercret service all around him and still was a cheat so who cares if some other guy went with Edwards. That doesn't really mean a thing. It's just a very, very sad story. Poor Elizabeth. She sure has had a lot to deal with- the death of her son, a cheating husband and stage 4 breast cancer. God give her strength!

He said in the interview that the reason he went when they asked to meet with him was because he wanted to make sure they weren't going to do anything that would take the story public.

Might be, might not. Meeting in a hotel and trying to hide doesn't do much to help me!! I just hope everything works out ok for Elizabeth and his children.

I'm really curious about something.

I see that the mistress says she won't consent to a paternity test.

Can she do that legally?

I realize he's not pushing to have one so it's a moot point, but if he believed himself to be the father and wanted to know, could he legally make one happen?

Does a man have a right to find out if he's the parent of a child?

If a woman refused to allow a man to find out but decided ten years later to get a DNA test could she sue him for back child support and win?

To me it seems pretty obvious that he is the father of that baby and that he continued the affair after he told his wife it was over. To have it be known that he's the father would 'out' that lie.

I believe that as long as she is not seeking support for herself or the child through the proper channels (the legal arena) then she can refuse to name a father. I believe a father could petition the court and get a subpoena to obtain a DNA sample from said child--if he's so inclined.

My PERSONAL opinion is she's being paid quite well by SOMEONE--to refuse to allow the testing, and of course Edwards is saying he doesn't have a problem w/ testing. So, we have a stalemate of sorts--but it reflect favorably on Edwards. Again, this is just my opinion. I find it extremely convenient that an aide/former employee of Edwards has taken responsibility as the father.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

I agree.

And ya know... in the interview, something about his demeanor changed when he was asked about whether it was possible that he could be the father of the baby. He stiffened visibly. Prior to that, he'd been using his hands and was just a bit more animated or something. When that question was asked, he didn't blink and seemed like he was trying to figure out what mannerisms to use.

I just didn't buy it.

The thing is... that baby is going to grow up and eventually want to know who her father is. If in fact the mistress is still in love with him (as has been reported) she'll want the child to know. Perhaps their 'deal' is that they won't let the truth be known until after his wife is gone.

Either way... it's all very sick and wrong and I just think he's lying through his teeth.

I just read somewhere that she's getting $15,000 from the lawyer who was the finance chairman of Edwards' campaign. Also, she (Ms. Hunter) is now living in a $3 mill. home and Andrew Young, the former Edwards aide who claims to be the baby's father(convienent) and was also moved into a $4 million home. I feel for poor Elizabeth Edwards. Good thing this guy didn't make it all the way to President, could you imagine what kind of ego he'd have then?

The whole thing is so sad for everyone. For his wife, for his kids, for his family, the other woman and her child and for those who believed in him.....he blew the entire thing for someone else. The power has ruined more people. I don't think I would want that much power or money if I thought I would be subject to that much temptation. How many politicians have "fallen" in the last few years.....and those are just the ones who got caught. Sad.

__________________
GO NAVY WRESTLING!!BEAT ARMY!!!
RJB 3/18/60 - 5/22/04
We miss you, sweet brother
God Bless the USA!!!!! Praying for my Youngster son at United States Naval Academy, class of 2014!!

http://mylifeundertheabaya.blogspot.com/

What I wonder is if his wife didn't have cancer how many people would still be "disgusted" with his actions. There are quite a few people I know personnally who during the Clinton/Lewinsky stuff were like, "everyone makes mistakes, he's only human, etc.". But those same people are now all about bashing Edwards for being with another woman while his wife has cancer.

As far as paternity, I think he should step up and demand a test even if the mother is declining. It speaks to his character - if he did father the child then he should be willing to support that child, and not privately, but publicly. And if he didn't the child shouldn't have to go through life with a doubt over who it's father is.

As far as the interview - the majority of all interviews with politicians are staged and practiced anyways. Was watching a special on Heidi Fleiss (and yes I will tie this in as relavent...lol) the other day and she was going in for an interview and the host took her into a room privately to discuss what Heidi would "allow" her to ask and to talk about what things she was and was not comfortable discussing on air. And I'm sure that is even more applicable to politicians - they aren't stupid. Unless they are sitting down for something like Howard Stern, they are more than aware ahead of time what is going to be asked of them. And I've thought more often than not that suprised reactions or tense moments during interviews are all part of the head game politicans and the media like to play.

Well, given as how Bill is a man-whore and I would have to assume Hillary knew he was then I think the general public should not have an issue with whatever agreement worked best for them. I believe that Hillary knew all along that Bill was getting some on the side--if that's not the case, then two things: 1) Bill is/was a man-whore and was wrong to do that, 2) Hillary must be blinder than a bat! But people often are blind when it comes to someone they love.

If Edwards' wife knew about this all along and was ok with it--then again, who are we to pick apart whatever their private agreement was. If, however, as I suspect Edwards didn't tell his wife until he was afraid she'd find out the hard way, then he was wrong.

Some people actually do have "open" marriages and it works for them. And that's their business....
And see while McCain was still legally married to his 1st wife when he met the "trophy" wife--from what I have read, their marriage was all but over. She knew it, he knew it....so I don't have a problem with McCain on that issue.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

What I've read indicates that he knew it, but she didn't.

__________________

Reading is Fundamental.

[quote=iluvmylittlemonsters;3030031]I think Mrs. Edwards' condition plays into it big time. She is a sympathetic figure admired on both sides of the aisle and even if she knew about the affair and "forgave" him we all felt betrayed by his actions because of feelings for her. I don't think such personal matters are any of my business unless the individual in question is making judgements about someone else's personal life, for example Newt Gingrich and various others during the Clinton mess; or are running as "family values candidates" and judge and condemn others for lifestyle choices while being less than upright in their own personal life.

ITA. Thinking paternity should be established now if in fact the mother isn't sure who the dad is, or it will be a whole big news story in the future when the child might be old enough to understand what is going on.

__________________
Ana
The Republicans have been putting lipstick on a pig for 8 years. Is a pitbull wearing lipstick an attempt to keep us from noticing the pig?

I'm not thinking that Elisabeth and John had an open marriage - not a very politically savvy arrangement to maintain.

I'm thinking that Elisabeth believed she had a traditional marriage with her husband (although I use the word 'traditional' with much hesitation...conjures up images of 'traditional women' - LOL)...

I agree. The whole thing is just sad all around. Obviously horribly sad for the family, but additionally, for his big cause - the less fortunate population(s).

__________________
"The errors of faith are better than the best thoughts of unbelief." - Thomas Russell

What Rielle Hunter Told Me | Newsweek Politics | Newsweek.com

Here is a Newsweek article that gives some of the details discussed above.
Interesting quote from the mistress Ms. Hunter:
"The real John Edwards, she believed, was a brilliant, generous, giving man who was driven by competing impulses—to feed his ego and serve the world. If he could only tap into his heart more, and use his head less, he had the power to be a "transformational leader" on par with Gandhi and Martin Luther King. "He has the power to change the world," she said."

__________________