Town Square

Post a New Topic

Edwards Admits Sexual Affair; Lied as Presidential Candidate

Original post made by mike w b on Aug 8, 2008

breaking news from ABCWeb Link


In ABC News Interview, Edwards Says He Cheated, but Did Not Father Child
By RHONDA SCHWARTZ and BRIAN ROSS

August 8, 2008 —

John Edwards repeatedly lied during his Presidential campaign about an extramarital affair with a novice filmmaker, the former Senator admitted to ABC News today.

In an interview for broadcast tonight on Nightline, Edwards told ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff he did have an affair with 44-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.

Comments (46)

Posted by NO LIARS, a resident of Stanford
on Aug 8, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Hey there you people going to ever understand that giving powers to LIARS is not a good idea.

Lying and Steeling are very familiar partners.

In political office as well as business lying should never be tolerated.

FIRE THEM ALL.



Posted by bho, a resident of College Terrace
on Aug 8, 2008 at 12:40 pm



You Know - They Just Ain't Making It Any Better For Obama.....

first the Clinton's and now Edwards. No wonder Barack went on vacation now. He probably was told that this would break this week.


Posted by why?, a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Aug 8, 2008 at 12:43 pm


Wednesday December 19th, 2007 4:03 PM by BHDC Staff

CBS NEWS with Katie Couric, 9 months ago:

KATIE COURIC: Harry Truman said, "A man not honorable in his marital relations is not usually honorable in any other." Some people don't feel comfortable supporting a candidate who has not remained faithful to his or her spouse. Can you understand their position?

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS: Of course. I mean, for a lot of Americans– including the family that I grew up with, I mean, it's– it's fundamental to– how you judge people and human character– whether you keep your word, whether you keep what is your ultimate word, which is that– you love– your spouse, and you'll stay with them.


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 8, 2008 at 12:55 pm

"A man not honorable in his marital relations is not usually honorable in any other."

Like Dwight Eisenhower and Bob Dole, and Newt Gingrich and Henry Hyde and Bob Livingston and all the others that didn't get outed because Larry Flynt, fearing imminent bankruptcy, canceled his million dollar bounty on philandering Republicans.


Posted by Walter E. Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 8, 2008 at 1:13 pm

All men are beasts, except me. No one else would have me.


Posted by Peter S, a resident of Barron Park
on Aug 8, 2008 at 2:25 pm



The real scandal will break in a couple of weeks when they trace the $120,000 dollars and do a paternity test, just in time for the Denver convention.

Edwards knew this would come out after the Gary Heart train wreck, Edwards may well have sabotaged Obamas chance, he should of stayed in town and not fled to vacation, it does not look presidential when Russia has declared war on Georgia.

McCain will now appear the expert on security issues, what a mess!


Posted by sally, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 8, 2008 at 2:48 pm



Elizabeth Edwards puts her life in further jeopardy by campaigning on her husband's behalf. She worked as hard as anybody during the primaries.

He rewards her this way.

To me this story is about her, not him. Who cares about him at this point.

He was running for President of the United States.

His wife & children being put through the coals publicly through no fault of their own.

Thank goodness he lost.


Posted by kit, a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Aug 8, 2008 at 3:14 pm



"Obvious question:

If the affair ended so long ago that he couldn't be the father of a child born in February of this year, what's he doing sneaking out to a hotel late at night to visit his old girlfriend?"


Posted by mary, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 8, 2008 at 3:20 pm

It wasn't love, it was simply lust! Don't we all feel better? This is also known as throwing your mistress under the bus when the affair is exposed. Which, of course, any mistress with an IQ above a, well, mink's, would expect.

ABC News reports, "Edwards made a point of telling Woodruff that his wife's cancer was in remission when he began the affair with Hunter."

How kind of John to remain faithful to Elizabeth as long as she wasn't dying. That makes just a, you know, routine violation of the seventh Commandment rather than a really bad one, right?

"He said he would ask questions about any possible arrangement" having been made for payments. Yes, John Edwards is going to track down the people who paid off his horizontal friend (remember, he "didn't love her") in order to keep her quiet. Sort of reminds me of someone else's pledge to "find the real killers."


Posted by hee hee, a resident of Ventura
on Aug 8, 2008 at 3:36 pm

It's a ploy to take the spotlight off Obama, and apparently everybody is falling for it. Hillary is running the campaign.


Posted by kat, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Aug 8, 2008 at 3:45 pm

It's old news. Check this out: Web Link


Posted by kas, a resident of College Terrace
on Aug 8, 2008 at 3:54 pm


I don't really care what he does in his private life. If he wants to screw around, fine.

I don't agree with it, obviously, but it's ultimately between him and Elizabeth.

But he chose to be a presidential candidate, cheating on a wife with cancer, and then running for the Democratic nomination with that fact tucked away waiting to break out as an October surprise.

Not only is that an incredibly selfish act, but he could have single-handedley given us another 8 years of Republican rule if he won the primaries.

His hubris makes my blood boil.

To think that he ran with this thinking he wouldn't endanger not just the presidency but this country too is just repulsive.


Posted by nate, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 8, 2008 at 4:16 pm



Give Edwards a break, remember what he has done for the poor and the unions.

His sex life is his own business.He does not hold a public office, he has not committed any crime.

He is not a cheap date, he paid the girl over $100,000 dollars and has seen that she has been provided for since.

I think that is very, very generous of him. She is over forty and not attractive, she is certainly no trophy, he could have just told her to get lost.

No wonder the Europeans laugh at our prudery.

The man has stood up and confessed, he did not have to do that, I certainly would not if I were in his shoes.

I think we should be proud of him and I hope he attends the convention in Denver and is their for Elizabeths major speech.


Posted by Mark, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 8, 2008 at 4:40 pm

Right, who cares about his private life? Only people with small minds. Get a life!


Posted by live and let live, a resident of Professorville
on Aug 8, 2008 at 5:01 pm


Kissinger said that power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.

Look it is just human nature. You have weathy, powerfull men in their prime in their 50s and 60s attractive to young women while their wives are post menopausal hags.

What do you expect them to do?

It looks like Edwards was as discreet as he could be, which is the best you can expect.

JFK had lots of women, at least he showed good taste, better than Clinton with that whale Monica.

Politicians, businessmen,sport stars and celebrities all run around.

As long as they are discreet and take precautions who cares?

It does not seem that Elizabeth cares otherwise she would have separated, Hillary obviously did not care either and she had her nose rubbed in it from the beginning.

Live and let live


Posted by A Boomer, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 8, 2008 at 7:46 pm

Why is it that women in high office never find themselves in such situations? Or do they. And they don't get reported?


Posted by Jennifer, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 8, 2008 at 7:57 pm

"Why is it that women in high office never find themselves in such situations?"

It is the age-old answer:

Women use sex to gain power; men use power to gain sex.

Dah?!


Posted by mary, a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 8, 2008 at 10:49 pm



well look, who wants to have an affair with a 50 +yr old woman, I understand we all believe in Darwin dont we? survival of the fit, natural selection etc that is science.

Get real


Posted by hmm, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 8, 2008 at 10:56 pm

Unless Edwards has had a vasectomy, I wonder how he can be certain that he is not the father. Maybe he doesn't know much biology either.


Posted by W. Morgan, a resident of another community
on Aug 8, 2008 at 11:33 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by julie, a resident of Meadow Park
on Aug 9, 2008 at 12:36 am

I have lost respect for Edward's wife, I know she is ill, but where is the self-respect of the women that have their man cheat on them, I for one would tell the bum to hit the road, I don't understand these women, they are fools to continue to support their husbands, this woman would not stay in the same room let alone stay in the marriage,

They are all a disgrace, the children are the ones that are going to have to live with this damage that is done.


Posted by sue mom, a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Aug 9, 2008 at 1:01 am



Why did he not he say "I have never had unprotected sex with that woman", he is a lawyer he knows how to use words to protect himself.

He came across as a sleaze ball lawyer in the video.

This is really bad for us who liked obama


Posted by real perspective, a resident of Midtown
on Aug 9, 2008 at 5:59 am

most of us already knew what kind of man he was, why do you think he went down in flames in 2004?

the shock and dismay here cracks me up as much as the shock and dismay over Lewinsky.

A zebra doesn't become a horse just because you paint him.


Posted by food for thought, a resident of another community
on Aug 9, 2008 at 10:30 am

Why are some of you and press trying to connect Obama to this situation? That just isn't logical. Also, why would some of you people claim this hurts Obama's chances of election? That isn't logical either. Are you trying to blame every man for what one man did? That just isn't logical. It sounds like something McCain's crowd would do to take advantage of the situation for personal gain. Democrats said Clinton's personal life didn't matter, so they (especially the Clintons) shouldn't be making a big deal out of this either for risk of being called hypocrites.

Now, another rumor is that McCain ran around on his ex-wife and then married his rich mistress (his present wife). Why doesn't the press and people emotionally hurting over this particular story criticize him for his own discretions? After all, this guy is still in the race, right? When you get involve with politician and cheating, you could make a career as a private investigator these days. Have you ever heard of what the elitest like GW Bush, GHW Bush, etc. who go to the Bohemian Grove (See www.infowars.com archives)? Now, if this issue is important to you, you should have voted for people like the Dennis ?Kucinich? or Ron Paul as candidates for President in the primaries as well as now choosing not vote at all for either of the present Democratic or Republican Presidential candidates.

P.S. For those people who would claim Hillary wouldn't do this herself, rumor says Hillary Clinton HAD Vince Foster, etc. herself!


Posted by No HC, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 9, 2008 at 11:52 am

Hillary wants the VP spot so is destroying everyone else. The timing is very odd.

She is not an angel:

Web Link



Posted by bike, a resident of College Terrace
on Aug 9, 2008 at 11:53 am


The thunder we hear in the distance is the reverberation of a Portly Pantsuit scorned by the primary process that would have had her the Democrat nominee, had John Edwards "come" clean when the story first hit.

Edwards is a shyster lawyer so we may be sure that he's covered himself as cleverly as possible by using those who were loyal to him during his political career. He's careful to say that Elizabeth was in remission during his affair which may or may not be true but is one way to attempt to lighten public perception.

I'm guessing that the young woman cannot be appeased simply with fifteen thousand a month and knows that Edwards is the father. Hence, his risky trip to the hotel to attempt to shut her up.

How ironic that Edwards made his fortune by exploiting the parents of dead or dying children and now he's having to shovel out a part of it to hide his mistress and his love/ sorry his indifferent child ( he said he did not love the mother).


Posted by jd, a resident of Ohlone School
on Aug 9, 2008 at 12:07 pm

There is no father listed on the birth certificate so that makes Ms. Hunter the sole legal representative of the baby, and the only person who can submit that child for genetic testing to obtain a possible matching sample.

And is Ms. Hunter likely to do that when she considers the possibility that she may someday be Mrs. Edwards, wife of one of the wealthiest trial attorneys in America?
And there are news reports that she has indeed alluded to such a future with Mr. Silky Pony when he is no longer matrimonially encumbered.Elizabeth will be dead soon.

Now I suppose there might be provisions under California law that would permit involuntary testing in a paternity suit if there were compelling public interests at stake but we have neither a complainant nor a compelling public interest here.

What we do have, in my opinion, is a very slick demonstration of lawyering skills being applied by a man so unslick as to allow himself to be cornered in a public restroom by a bunch of reporters and photographers at the scene of the slime.


Posted by Tim, a resident of Crescent Park
on Aug 9, 2008 at 4:52 pm

"who cares about his private life"? The guy cheated on his wife and to make it worst, she was fighting a battle with cancer at the time!
Real class act.


Posted by Mark, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 9, 2008 at 5:36 pm

""who cares about his private life"? The guy cheated on his wife and to make it worst, she was fighting a battle with cancer at the time!"

Like I said, "get a life!". You can start judging Edwards when you have shown yourself to be spotless. Edwards did something you don't like. So, take note of that and forget about pasting the guy as a loser. That's just stupid. Everyone makes mistakes. Now go get that life, you need one!


Posted by Outside Observer, a resident of another community
on Aug 9, 2008 at 6:31 pm

Why is this even news?

Just another dishonest hypocrite liberal politician.

Show me one that isn't and that will be news!


Posted by bike, a resident of College Terrace
on Aug 9, 2008 at 6:55 pm


The ex-mistress of former presidential candidate John Edwards says she will not participate in DNA testing to establish the paternity of her daughter.

Rielle Hunter's lawyer, Robert Gordon, says his client is a private individual who wishes to maintain the privacy of herself and her daughter.

In a statement, Gordon says that Hunter is ruling out any kind of testing that could establish who the daughter's father is.

On Friday, Edwards admitted to having an extramarital affair with Hunter in 2006 but denied that he was the father of Hunter's five-month-old daughter. Edwards said he will take a paternity test to prove he is not the father.

Silky knew this before he made his his pitch last night, what a slease

but he did endorse obamanism


Posted by Tim, a resident of Crescent Park
on Aug 10, 2008 at 2:44 pm

To Mark,

First, I have a great life. Retire at 52 and living
the great life in Palo Alto.
Second, John Edward's career is done- can you say Gary Hart?
As sick as she was, during his run for VP, his wife would campaign for
him each day while she battle cancer and he thanks her by jumping
in bed with some campaign worker.
This person wants the public trust and you think by him lieing to the
public, it should not matter. His private life should not come into play when he wants to be a public servant.
I got news for you, it does mean a lot. Your pal John is done. Oh, did
I mention I'm living the good life!





Posted by Mark, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 10, 2008 at 10:14 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by W. Morgan, a resident of another community
on Aug 11, 2008 at 7:17 am

Let's see here: What seems to be the problem?

"Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy" was a phrase spoken by American Democratic vice-presidential candidate Senator Lloyd Bentsen to Republican vice-presidential candidate Senator Dan Quayle during the 1988 vice-presidential debate.

For satire and humor, I use the same line in pointing out yet another hypocritical politician that can't seem to tell the truth to the voters or his wife and at the same time compare Jack Kennedy's girlfriend Marilyn Monroe to the rather plain Rielle Hunter, a.k.a. Lisa Druck.

You seem to have some problem with the truth here?


Posted by W. Morgan, a resident of another community
on Aug 11, 2008 at 7:42 am

By Hollywood standards she is not:hot. The rather plain Rielle Hunter, a.k.a. Lisa Druck.

Web Link

Web Link



Posted by huh?, a resident of another community
on Aug 11, 2008 at 9:35 am

What's your point, Morgan? That a man is justified in cheating on his wife only if the other woman is hot? Or are you saying that a man who goes for looks and breasts is more admirable than a guy who's attracted to substance?


Posted by W. Morgan, a resident of another community
on Aug 11, 2008 at 9:52 am

Not at all, I say Edwards is a coward and a liar. And a man of his age knows how not to get a woman pregnant.


Posted by huh?, a resident of another community
on Aug 11, 2008 at 10:04 am

Then why the need for TWO posts that harp on hot? And how do the picture links support the points - coward, liar, how not to get pregnant - you claim to be making?


Posted by Mark, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 11, 2008 at 1:05 pm

A spouse is justified in seeking out love and affection in any way he or she wants, depending on the circumstances of that spouse, which not one of you are capable of judging, because you're not them. So, get a life!


Posted by W. Morgan, a resident of another community
on Aug 11, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Jack Kennedy - Liar
Bill Clinton - Liar
Dwight Eisenhower - Liar
Ted Kennedy - Liar
Gary Hart - Liar
John Edwards - Liar

Why would you vote for these guys. If they will lie to their wifes then what's to trust.

The problem is he lied to her as did all the aforementioned cowards. It is clear the aforementioned liars had performance problems and their wife's could not or would not meet their sexual needs. If that is the case after consulting her (the wife) and coming to an understanding of what is required. Then after telling her clearly, I have no problems with dumped the wife. Yet, all these liars kept on with line while getting it on the side.

The bottom line is tell the truth. If wiffy-poo is not performing like the Ferrari you married the be honest an tell her to hit the road.


Posted by Tim, a resident of Crescent Park
on Aug 11, 2008 at 2:04 pm

"A spouse is justified in seeking out love and affection in any way he or she wants, depending on the circumstances of that spouse, which not one of you are capable of judging, because you're not them."

I must of missed the article where Liz Edwards told John (as she battle for her life) " I give you the OK honey to have sex with another women. I know you have needs, go ahead".

John Edwards is a liar to his wife and the public- end of story and career!


Posted by huh?, a resident of another community
on Aug 11, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Morgan lists the guys who lied about their marital affairs. How about listing all the Republican Presidents who lied about major political issues - issues that actually mattered to the well-being of our country?
I'll take a Kennedy over your choice of Bush, an Eisenhower over the other one, and a Clinton over a Nixon. They're ALL liars. Some lie over bigger stakes than others.


Posted by Peter S, a resident of College Terrace
on Aug 11, 2008 at 2:49 pm



This issue will come down to following the money, and a lot of it probably $1million and counting.

Elizabeth Edwards is also a guilty party in this, she supported his run for president knowing about the scandal, this put the Democratic Pary at risk as well as the country( Edwards would have been vulnerable to blackmail).

His run also denied Billory a chance of winning.

So all together Edwards has powerful enemies now and a Fitzgerald type prosecutor sharpening his pen.

We have not heard the end of this sordid affair


Posted by Paul, a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 11, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Hey W Morgan, you left out:

Bob Dole - Liar
Newt Gingrich - Liar
Bob Livingston - Liar
Henry Hyde - Liar
Mark Foley - Liar
Larry Craig - Liar
George W Bush - Liar


Posted by Jesse, a resident of Ventura
on Aug 11, 2008 at 5:33 pm

Are they going to make her tell everything they did like they made Monica tell?


Posted by John Leslie, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 11, 2008 at 6:37 pm

If they do it will be a short story.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

To post your comment, please click here to login

Remember me?
Forgot Password?
or register. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Touring the Southern California “Ivies:” Pomona and Cal Tech
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 5 comments | 2,959 views

Chai Brisket
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 2,123 views

Couples: Parallel Play or Interactive Play?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,283 views

Sometimes "I'm Sorry" Doesn't Cut It
By Cheryl Bac | 7 comments | 1,197 views

SJSU Center for Steinbeck Studies to Honor Author Khaled Hosseini on Weds Sept 10
By Nick Taylor | 0 comments | 746 views