August 8, 2008

"...there are two Americas. Edwards had a wife in one and a girlfriend in the other..."

Marc Comtois

John Edwards has admitted that he had an affair with Rielle Hunter around the same time his wife was fighting cancer.


The National Enquirer broke it weeks ago--with plenty of corroborating evidence--but it was ignored by the MSM (unlike McCain's supposed "affair" that was "reported" by the NY Times earlier this year) and it was left to blogs and the online community to carry the story. Now that the coast is clear, all of the usual suspects are picking up the story.

Edwards claims the child isn't his--though he did visit her last month--and also is trying to lay out a timeline that shows he wasn't actually romancing Hunter while Mrs. Edwards was fighting for her life. Nope, he claims he waited until after she was in remission (the first time). Well, I guess that just makes it better: why on earth would a woman trying to deal with the effects that chemo, radiation and cancer have on the body and spirit need the attention and affection of her husband, right John?

Again, disgusting.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

Sereal adulterer,Newt Gingrich comes to mind.
Served his first wife with divorce papers as she was in the hospital for cancer

Posted by: LLOYD at August 8, 2008 5:13 PM

Didn't McCain dump his wife for then seventeen year old Cindy?

Posted by: Greg at August 8, 2008 6:27 PM

That's nothing. King David sent Uriah to die so that he could take his wife.

Posted by: Mario at August 8, 2008 6:31 PM

Guys, you've gotta be kidding me, right? Sheesh, you're really gonna defend Edwards with some sort of lame moral equivalency argument? The post is about Edwards, not Gingrich or McCain (neither of whom I'd defend either).

Just lame.

Posted by: Marc at August 8, 2008 6:37 PM

Cut it out Marc.
You might not have defended McCain, but you let that news slip by without comment. That's the underlying point made by Lloyd and Greg. The lame moral equivalency argument is entirely in your head.

Posted by: OldTimeLefty at August 8, 2008 7:00 PM

Cut it out Marc.
You might not have defended McCain, but you let that news slip by without comment. That's the underlying point made by Lloyd and Greg. The lame moral equivalency argument is entirely in your head.

Posted by: OldTimeLefty at August 8, 2008 7:00 PM

Don't care about it. Not worthy of discussion. Both parties are rife with scum. Trying to divvy the scum into 'adulterer' and 'non-adulterer' seems kinda pointless.

Posted by: Greg at August 8, 2008 7:47 PM

Although opposed to divorce, I don't find it all that relevant (of itself) when choosing a president. That said, I suppose it's worth dealing in truth. Cindy McCain was 26 when she married John, and I don't believe anybody has any proof (even the man himself) as to whether the eleven-year-old Marc found it worth comment.

As for Newt, his marital history is most definitely a factor that detracts from his observable character, but as I understand, his second divorce was long in the works before cancer entered the picture.

Posted by: Justin Katz at August 8, 2008 8:57 PM

Google "Republican Adulterers"

the list is WAY to long to post here

Posted by: Andy at August 8, 2008 9:30 PM

I have alot more sympathy for Edwards than for Bill Clinton.

Clinton blatantly broke the law and abused his power and committed real crimes in covering up a relatively insignificant indiscretion. He was rightfully disbarred. The only way Clinton avoided impeachment was through corrupt partisanship. Considering that the notion of the President being above the law was at issue --a government of laws versus a government of men --the public had a major stake.

I am not saying that what Edwards did was right, but it really is mostly a private matter between a husband and a wife. The public has a minimal stake, mostly a tabloid fascination.

I am no fan of Edwards, nor Hillary nor Barack. Their socialist/ big government policies suck. I am not even much of a fan of McCain, but he seems to be the lessser of the evils.

Posted by: Citizen Critic at August 8, 2008 9:38 PM

Your remarks are disingenuous. Marc wasn't an on the scene reporter. He was reporting after the fact. Marc wasn't 11 years old when Vicki Iseman hit the scene and was run out of town by the McCain handlers.

That being said, I actually agree with you that divorce or bedroom peccadillos are irrelevant to a presidential race.

It's interesting to note how your "faith" lets you ignore a divorced candidate, but lets you rail against one that is pro choice. Very convenient Republican morals.
P.S. Please delete one of my duplicate posts above.

Posted by: OldTimeLefty at August 8, 2008 9:51 PM

Why does it always have to come down to a Jerry Springer issue?
I am more concerned by far with Dick Cheney ducking the draft and Bill Clinton pardoning a world class evil manipulator like Marc Rich.Or Clinton's behavior with regard to Somalia.Or Paul Wolfowitz ducking the draft.Or Bill Clinton ducking the draft.Or George Bush listening to draft doging neocons and invading Iraq when we were just starting to turn the corner in Afghanistan.I don't care who any of them screws as long as they are over the legal age.Clinton's main Monica problem in my book was shi**ing where he ate,and using his position to get over.

Posted by: joe bernstein at August 8, 2008 9:56 PM

This enters the realm of public life when we assess his judgment. It's sorely lacking. Newt Gingrich isn't in line for spoils or goodies from a new administration; regardless, I won't defend his actions either. This is important because Edwards is a weak and flawed man who should not be in a position of government responsibility. If this keeps him out, fine.

When she met McCain, Cindy Hensley was 25 years old. McCain spent 5/7ths of the time of his first marriage being tortured in a prison camp. He refused early release and it cost him. I'll cut him some slack, given that the rest of us can't do better than 50:50 on a permanent marriage under far less trying circumstances.

seekrit message to greg - you and I might as well stay home election day - the state's yellow dog dumbocrats will neutralize your vote even if you do hold your nose and vote for the old guy.

Posted by: chuckR at August 8, 2008 10:01 PM

Regardless of other/past adulterers - this speaks volumes to the continued moral breakdown in America. Dems and Gop'ers should be ashamed at the kind of behavior that has now become commonplace in this country: Clinton, Spitzer, Edwards, as stated above - the list is huge.

Matt Allen made a great point on the show tonight. If Morality is not enough to curb this type of behavior - then dont do it because of the consequences - think before you do things, especially in the public eye. I almost got ran down in a gas station today ($3.63 a gallon thank God) My first thought was to go give the driver a piece of my mind - then I remembered I'm a candidate for office - so i just gave him a little look and kept going. The point is consider the consequences, not only is it wrong - but as Matt put it today: "Is 10 seconds of 'oh baby' really worth it?" The answer is no!

Posted by: Robert A Paquin III - District 19 State Rep Candidate) at August 9, 2008 3:10 AM

Edwards is a goof. He's got a beautiful family and a talented wife. He's been blessed with looks, intelligence, and material wealth. But, as noted above, this is one of the oldest stories in politics.

And how about the media?

Good thing the cable chat shows had Edwards to talk about endlessly yesterday, cuz talkin' about the second most important news story of the day might have actually required some real reporting.

Sorry folks, no time to report on the outbreak of war . . . but here's our analysis of the post-Paris Hilton tracking polls!

Posted by: brassband at August 9, 2008 7:12 AM

Yup. Edwards is a lying piece of scum. Not that there aren't plenty of others out there; but that's not what this story is about. And the bastard is still lying - what was he doing meeting with Rielle last week if a) the affair is over; or b) it's not his child?

No question that the liberal MSM has their heads so far up their arses that they can never be trusted. How freakin' pathetic is it when the National Enquirer becomes a more trusted source for news than ABC, CBS, NYT, Washington Post, etc. No wonder these lame publications are going down the tube.
There are many little sub-plots to this whole Edwards story. This is just too funny!

Posted by: Mike Cappelli at August 9, 2008 10:44 AM

The Gingrich comparison is pretty accurate.
In a way, I rank Edwards below Clinton. At least we knew what we were getting into with him. It's the guys that come on like Mr. Clean (Edwards, Vitter, Spitzer, Gingrich) whose philandering is the most offensive.
If I were McCain, though, I'd keep in mind that I'm not entering this debate with clean hands.

Posted by: rhody at August 9, 2008 11:39 AM

Sorry rhody, but President Clinton messed around with an intern half his age, in the Oval Office, and then pointed directly at every American and lied about it. He sent his unknowing wife out to bolster the lie, and committed perjury. On the scumbag meter, none comes even close to Clinton.

Posted by: mikeinRI at August 9, 2008 12:43 PM

"...his unknowing wife..."


Yeah, like she didn't know.

Posted by: Greg at August 9, 2008 2:05 PM

Bill Clinton committed multiple felonies.

Nobody even comes close.

Posted by: Citizen Critic at August 9, 2008 2:15 PM

Sorry, I didn't get the memo on the new "rule" of commentary stating I need to provide moral gravitas by citing bi-partisan examples of the same type and nature to prove I'm not a partisan in my morality.

I condemned Edwards, but didn't bring up McCain or Gingrich.....or Clinton, or FDR or JFK or Thomas Jefferson!

To repeat: what drew my ire was the particular situation with Edwards. That's it. The post was meant to portray my legitimate disgust over a man--any man--who would cheat on his wife while she was dealing with cancer.

It was a simple, straightforward commentary on an acute situation.

Posted by: Marc at August 9, 2008 8:00 PM

I'd gladly defend John McCain against the lies put forth by people like Greg and OTL.

While I don't seek to legitimize the behavior of either Edwards or McCain, anyone with a shred of commom sense can see the difference.

HELLO! McCain was in a POW camp and apart from his first wife for 6 YEARS! He married his first wife, adopted her two children as his own (which he continued to support) and never denied he had an affair.

Unlike McCain, John Edwards' infidelity occurred not after nearly a decade of absence from his wife, but while Edwards was living in the same house as his wife.

Unlike McCain, Edwards repeatedly lied about having an affair both privately to his staff and publicly to the press.

Unlike McCain, Edwards refuses to take a paternity test to even find out if he has a moral and financial responsibility to take care of the child.

Instead, one of Edwards' top campaign contributors is apparently providing the "child support" and making the arrangements for Edwards to see his mistress and her child.

As for Greg's assertion, Cindy was 25 when McCain met her, not 17.

So please, don't try to make John Edwards the moral equivalent of John McCain.

And yes, if Edwards had been a Republican, the MSM would have been all over it. It's ssd when the New York Times publishes "rumors" of infidelity about Republicans but totally ignores hard evidence about Democrats.

It is ironic that the NYT's bias apparently led to it being scooped by the hard-hitting journalists over at the National Enquirer. Is it any wonder that traditional newspapers are losing subscribers and that perhaps the nation's best news magazine (Economist) is actually a British publication?

Posted by: Anthony at August 11, 2008 11:15 AM

When we start making excuses for one case of adultery but not another, we get into a dangerous area.

Posted by: rhody at August 13, 2008 11:08 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.