Edwards’ Love Child Rumor
Filed under: 2008 elections, John Edwards — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on December 19, 2007 @ 12:06 pm CET
The National Enquirer broke a story yesterday about a rumor that could potentially destroy John Edwards’ candidacy. According to the gossip magazine, Edwards had an affair with a woman named Rielle Hunter earlier this year. Not only that, the affair resulted in her being pregnant.
Memeorandum has a round-up of bloggers’ reactions. Some seem to think that the Clinton campaign is behind the story (also because Edwards is now leading in Iowa). I reject that: it seems to me that the Clinton campaign wouldn’t spread a rumor as vicious like this. If the Clintons are behind it, Hillary will probably have blown up her own campaign if the story is false. Assuming that the Clinton campaign is behind it equals believing that the story is true, to me at least. They wouldn’t spread the rumor if they weren’t 100% sure it’s true. What’s more, Mickey Kaus writes at Slate that he heard the rumor and knows that the Clinton campaign is not behind it.
Having said that, as of now, I don’t believe that the rumor is true. At this moment, it comes across as one of those nasty gossips that go around for ages, but prove to be completely and utterly false. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t be true: it could. But for now, it would ludicrous to assume that it is true. As Ace writes, one has to assume that John Edwards is a complete idiot if one believes its true. After all, he’s running for president for a year already. Only a person who’s incredibly stupid would have an affair at such a moment.
I disagree with Edwards on a number of issues, but I don’t quite believe he’s stupid.
The story is most certainly weird though. Doug Ross quotes from the National Enquirer article:
The woman linked to Presidential candidate John Edwards in a cheating scandal is more than six months pregnant and telling a close confidante that Edwards is the father of her unborn child… the political bombshell comes just weeks after Edwards emphatically denied having an affair with Rielle Hunter, who formerly worked on his campaign.
…The ENQUIRER has now confirmed not only that Rielle is pregnant, but she is also living in Chapel Hill, N.C. in a gated community, just a few streets away from Andrew Young, who has been a key official in Edwards’ campaign… In a bizarre twist, Young, a 41-year-old married man with young children, now claims HE is the father of Reille’s baby.
But others are skeptical about his claim and talk of a political cover up is heating up… Reille, when contacted in person by the NATIONAL ENQUIRER, denied that she was Reille Hunter. Later, she hired a lawyer and issued a statement, saying that Young is the father… But a source close to the 43-year-old divorcee says Rielle has told a far different story privately.
“Rielle told me she had a secret affair with Edwards. When she found out that she was pregnant she said he was the father.”
Rielle loves Edwards and will do anything to protect him, the source said… The NATIONAL ENQUIRER has obtained exclusive photos of a visibly pregnant Rielle…
That’s not all though, the story becomes even more strange: if you try to read the article at NE, you’ll see that it’s gone. If NE believes the story to be true, why in Lord’s name would they take it down? And if NE has doubts about it, well, if NE has doubts it really means that the story is very dubious.
Yahoo News has an opinion piece up, rightfully pointing out that if the story’s legitimate, he’s done for. On the other hand, even if the story’s not legitimate it might sink his candidacy as well considering that the NE article is “set to go on sale at the checkout counters of the supermarkets and drug stores of Iowa, New Hampshire and the other 48 states Wednesday morning.” Considering that today is Wednesday, my question to Americans is: could you check the store to see what the NE reports precisely?
Shorter: the story is so strange that it’s hard to believe it’s true. Assuming it’s not true it’s a shame that NE published the article. If it is true, NE should give some solid evidence, and not just rumors. Thus far, the magazine hasn’t done so.
If true, Edwards’ career will be destroyed. If not true, his candidacy may very well be sunk anyway, which is a shame (not because I agree with his political views, but because of the reason). In that regard, I find it amazing to see how easy American magazines publish articles like this, without saying “it could not be true, but this is the rumor”; they’re destroying a person’s entire career, and don’t seem to care all that much.
For what it’s worth: even if it is true, I don’t quite see how that means that Edwards would make a horrible president.
UPDATE
I’m just thinking: those who say that the Clintons are behind this show that they either have no idea what they’re talking about, or that they’re suffering so much from CDS that they can’t think clearly anymore. Let me explain why:
- Ace says that Clinton wants to divide the “anti-Clinton vote.” Anti-Clinton vote? What anti-Clinton vote? We’re not talking about the national elections here, we’re talking about the Democratic primaries. In South Carolina, Clinton is the most popular Democrat: 81% of South Carolina Democrats think favorably of her, against 75% for Obama and 72% for Edwards. In Iowa Clinton is only slightly less popular than Obama: 79% for Obama, against 74% for Clinton almost two weeks ago. The most popular Democrat in Iowa is Edwards with 84% - but you can’t possibly speak of a large anti-Clinton vote if 74% of Democratic Iowans think highly of her. That’s only 26% who don’t. Those people can be ignored. What’s more, Clinton is the most popular Democrat, among Democrats, nationwide. By far.
These conservative bloggers seem to believe that since they hate Clinton everyone else does as well. The reality is, however, that Democrats think highly of her.
- Some commentators don’t seem to realize that Clinton doesn’t have to win Iowa. She doesn’t. It would be great if she does, but it’s not necessary. In other words, she doesn’t have to act as if it’s all or nothing there, so she doesn’t have to take great risks. However, there are two possible scenarios with Clinton losing that are relevant now:
1. Clinton loses, Obama wins: Obama could create momentum. He has the national support to potentially go all the way. In this scenario, he’ll be a threat.
2. Clinton loses, Edwards wins: Edwards can’t go all the way because he lacks the support. Obama, on the other hand, had to create momentum but hasn’t done so. Edwards winning in Iowa basically means that Clinton has come a gigantic step closer to winning the nomination.
In other words: it’s in Clinton’s own interest to have Edwards win Iowa if she’s going to lose anyway (which is very possible).
As such, it would be completely ludicrous for her to try to bring down Edwards in such a risky way.
In other words: the Clintons aren’t - and I’m very confident in saying this - behind this story.
More at the following two blogs (read both posts):
- Outside the Beltway (great round-up)
1 Lynx
December 19, 2007 @ 12:58 pm CET1. I don’t believe it. Call it intuition, but I have the feeling that Edwards really loves his wife. Only an utter sleazebag would cheat on his sick wife. Only a moron would do it during the campaign and only a gibbering idiot would do it without protection.
2. I don’t believe it came out of the Clinton camp. She doesn’t approach being that dumb. Besides, this would probably benefit Obama more than her. People leaning towards Edwards are more likely to go for Obama than Clinton. On top of that, if it came out that she was the origin of the matter, it would blow up in her face, big time. And not only if it were false, even if it were true, it would be the utmost of dirty politics, further driving people into the Obama camp.
Notice that it has apparently occured to no one that such a rumor could come from the Obama camp. Hillary is alread suspect number one in dirty politics, I don’t see that this will help her.
2 Michael van der Galien
December 19, 2007 @ 1:12 pm CETLynx I agree completely with your comment. Frankly, if one of the campaigns is involved, it would be Obama’s, because he HAS to beat Clinton.
Having said that, one gets the impression that none of the campaigns is behind it, if only because being behind it equal suicide.
3 Xel
December 19, 2007 @ 1:38 pm CETThis is one of those things that basically just need enough innuendo or indications sufficient for a rumor to take form and have a significant effect. If this isn’t true then those that created it/furthered ti have acted irresponsibly. There is no reason to spread this around - it is comaprable to saying "The news is that there is now a rumor about X, saying X.".
4 Michael van der Galien
December 19, 2007 @ 1:45 pm CETI disagree. It’s irresponsible to say "it’s probably true." But it’s the duty of those who analyze and report the news to report that this rumor exists and to have a critical look at it.
5 C Stanley
December 19, 2007 @ 2:23 pm CETI’m not sure I agree with you in comment #4, Michael. I’m not big on dismissing stories simply because of the source, but a gossip story from the National Enquirer has less than zero credibility (I’m not sure if you have a sense of what a rag it is- it’s completely beneath any serious discussion.) I get that the story is that some people are making it into a story- but I still find that ridiculous to discuss at any length. At most I think this deserves a brief one line mention in context of a larger story about the campaigns.
I do find it credible that the Clinton campaign could sink to very low depths like this would imply, but the main reason I wouldn’t suspect her here is that she actually would want Edwards to do better right now in order to divide the vote that’s currently veering toward Obama. I don’t exonerate her on the basis of principle, just on pragmatic effects of the smear campaign. If anyone did ‘leak’ this story, I’d put my money on someone outside of any of the campaigns who thinks it will help the person that they support. We seem to be seeing a lot more of that kind of nasty influence from outside campaigns- and sometimes there’s complicity, sometimes not, but it’s always difficult to know for sure. When you know that the net effect will probably hurt the candidate who would be suspected of doing the smearing, then you can pretty well assume that that candidate also knows that and wouldn’t have coordinated the mudslinging in that case.
6 Michael van der Galien
December 19, 2007 @ 2:39 pm CETmy God Christine. She’s an evil genius isn’t she?
7 C Stanley
December 19, 2007 @ 2:50 pm CETI’m not sure what that means- I am quite cynical about all politicians, and rather than being an exception, I think Hillary is known to be quite good at playing the games. I honestly can’t think of a single one of the candidates that I’d have trouble believing that they’d stoop to dirty tricks.
8 Michael van der Galien
December 19, 2007 @ 2:54 pm CETChristine. What’s the number one motivator in life?
It’s not love. But hate.
Therefore, the person who sold the story is likely to be someone who simply hates Edwards, not per definition someone who actively supports one of his opponents.
9 Xel
December 19, 2007 @ 2:55 pm CET"I disagree. It’s irresponsible to say "it’s probably true." But it’s the duty of those who analyze and report the news to report that this rumor exists and to have a critical look at it."
Maybe. I just think the existence of a rumor does not qualify as news - it is arbitrary to say "Well, seeing as there is a rumor it is best to inform people now, like prepare them for a future revalation.". Facts are facts, a rumor has a serious effect whether the subject is innocent or not without being validated as actually true, and i think it is wrong to decide a rumor is valid to spread around.
As for the Clinton possibility - I wouldn’t be surprised but I also agree that it wouldn’t be strategic. If there is something these guys ain’t, it’s being poor at calculation
10 Michael van der Galien
December 19, 2007 @ 2:59 pm CETXel: what’s fascinating is that the opposition to Clinton is so deeply ingrained among American conservatives that they automatically blame her, even though rational thinking leads one to concludes that it’s not in her interest to go after Edwards like this.
11 Lynx
December 19, 2007 @ 3:02 pm CETThere’s another posibility altogether; that this is a total fabrication meant to sell papers. We are talking about the Enquirer here, the same paper that breaks stories like "Woman gives birth to thirty pound baby" and "My husband is a werewolf" with some of the worst photoshop I’ve seen in my life. If anyone is capable of making something up, it’s them.
I don’t see any campaign benefiting from this, were it to gain legs. Edwards will suffer the blow to his reputation in the minds of the credulous, and either Obama or Clinton, were they to be found out, would suffer serious blows. Clinton would suffer even more long term effects, because it would lock her reputation as a viper in the minds of many. Obama would suffer deeply in his squeeky clean image as well, and most importantly, lose Iowa, and with it most of his chance at the presidency.
12 Michael van der Galien
December 19, 2007 @ 3:06 pm CETLynx: I don’t know. There were rumors out there already, for months, that there was a major story out there, waiting to be published.
Campaigns benefiting: I agree - except for Obama, if the accusation sticks. You argue that it could hurt him if he’s behind it: thusfar, no one’s arguing he is. I don’t think think this will hurt him, unless someone comes out and says "yep, Obama’s behind it."
But I’m reasonably sure that won’t happen (mostly because I don’t think he’s behind it).
Having said that, I don’t think this is about ‘who benefits,’ as much as it is about ‘who dislikes Edwards’?
13 sashal
December 19, 2007 @ 3:53 pm CETPersonally, I never read NE.
If I want to get fun from mentally retarded scriptures, I would rather read about liberals who are fascists
14 Interested
December 19, 2007 @ 4:09 pm CETI agree that it’s not part of any campaign out there. It would be by either someone with a vendetta against Edwards, people outside the campaign on a typical level would not have the strategic thought necessary to think about domino theories - it would be simply to down one specific candidate. It possibly could be one deranged individual working inside a campaign who would have a strategic vision but they would be acting totally on their own.
But either way - I doubt this was the big story you were talking about Michael - if there was one, it would not be broken in the NE, it would be on mainstream news and Edwards is not much of a threat to anyone at the moment.
15 Rich Horton
December 19, 2007 @ 7:59 pm CETChristine, you wanted a chance to do a Grover Cleveland attack ad? Maybe it will be more relevant than you thought??!!
As in most of these things the only way Edwards can be seriously hurt by this is A) If it is true, and the world’s worst coverup scheme is unravelling; (I’d give that 5% chance that is whats going on.) Or, B) If part of its true (maybe had the affair, but is not the not-so-pround papa), and a desperate CYA attempt is underway that makes Edwards look like a complete schmuck. (20% chance.) Because it is still so early either A or B might be enough to scare away those Democrats worried about "electibility."
I’d say there is 75% chance that whatever this is, it will not affect the Edwards campaign too much.
We shall see.
16 C Stanley
December 19, 2007 @ 8:09 pm CETLOL- Rich is referencing a recent conversation at Stubborn Facts, and the point is well taken. The more things change, the more they remain the same, eh?
17 daveinboca
December 19, 2007 @ 8:13 pm CETAlthough the evidence isn’t overwhelming, Mickey Kaus has noted as has the HuffPuff blog [no biased source] that the $114K "documentary" Rielle shot has mysteriously disappeared since it appeared in ‘06. Lots of smoke there that has been smoking a long time.
As far as hypocritical self-destructive behavior, what "presidential candidate" would invest $18 million in an offshore hedge fund for sub-prime mortgages and at the same time call himself an advocate for the "poor." [Oh yeah, and take a half-million "consulting fee" for good measure.]
As P.T. Barnum once said, there’s one born every minute.
18 JENNY
December 20, 2007 @ 2:38 am CETI JUST FOUND THIS! Look at who the producer is! http://www.webcastr.com/videos/news-politics/edwards-webisode-1-plane-truths.html Before he was running for President, John Edwards made a series of short documentaries that later vanished from the internet…until now. Produced by Reille Hunter and Mimi Hockman for Midline Groove Productions.
19 Tully
December 20, 2007 @ 3:53 am CETI love the sound of incomplete knowledge.
The Enquirer is wholly owned by an investment group headed and controlled by former (and potentially future) Clinton Treasury Secretary Roger Altman. Draw your own conclusions.
20 C Stanley
December 20, 2007 @ 4:14 am CETI was aware of that, Tully, but I still don’t get why Altman and Co. would orchestrate this since Obama’s the one who potentially gains the most from an Edwards slide.
21 Interested
December 20, 2007 @ 6:24 am CETRight, her machine has been too well planned to have this a known act. Maybe someone acting on their own - but it can’t be part of anyone’s campaign.
22 english teacher
December 20, 2007 @ 6:41 am CETdoes this mean bigfoot is real?
23 John Edwards Love Child Scandal
July 23, 2008 @ 2:50 am CEST[…] Michael van der Galien figures the “Clinton campaign wouldn’t spread a rumor as vicious like this.” Or, upon reflection, “They wouldn’t spread the rumor if they weren’t 100% sure it’s true.” […]