[goMac]

Supposedly the Enquirer caught Edwards at a hotel late at night meeting with another woman and her baby.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-st..._b_115165.html

(The Enquirer isn't a great source, but supposedly the security guard who helped hide Edwards is talking...)

There's no evidence that Edwards did anything wrong, and a campaign staffer has already said he's the babies father, but things still don't look good, and even if Edwards hasn't done anything wrong, this is shortly going to be fodder for the right. If Edwards isn't the father, what is he doing meeting the mother late at night in a hotel registered in someone else's name? Why was his first reaction to seeing a reporter running and hiding in the bathroom?

[subego]

The SO told me about this a week ago and I said "hmmm... don't you think someone from the other side would have warned him? I mean, hell... wouldn't one of them told him not to get married in the first place?"

Three days later I see it's John Edwards the politician, not John Edwards the psychic.

What was funny is that she just rolled with the "other side" comment, thinking I meant Republicans instead of dead people.

[dcmacdaddy]

Yeah, I've been hearing about this for a week or more now.

First it was Edwards as the secret baby-daddy.
Then it was a top Edwards staffer as the secret baby-daddy.
Now people think the top Edwards staffer is falling on his sword for Edwards himself.

My guess is they were both fooling around with her and we won't know who is the real
father until a genetic test can be performed on the baby. But, the situation doesn't look
good whoever the father turns out to be. If it is John Edwards he will be forever tagged
as the Democrat's version of Newt Gingrich--out there playing the field with another
woman while his wife is suffering from/through cancer.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Oh, I forgot about that aspect of the wife.

[stupendousman]

When I look at these things, I always shake my head. I could care who these politicians are screwing (as long as it's not me), but there's something else that comes to light whenever they fail to keep from getting caught:

Lack of discretion.

If you can't be discrete in your personal affairs and keep things under control how can I expect you to be able to do better with matters of national security? My personal welfare? The state of the nation? If you lack discretion on matters that would hurt you seriously in a personal manner, how could I trust you to show proper discretion and good judgement when it comes to things that are important TO ME?

You don't have to be a moral person, but you do have to show some reasonable common sense about things if you don't want your actions to cause you trouble. Edwards seems as though he's one of those guys who doesn't get it.

[smacintush]

John Edward's politics are more of a scandal than this is.

He's not even holding an office so who cares? Even if her were to, or if he were to be Obama's running mate then call me when he lies to a grand jury about it or breaks some other law.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

When I look at these things, I always shake my head. I could care who these politicians are screwing (as long as it's not me), but there's something else that comes to light whenever they fail to keep from getting caught:

Lack of discretion.

If you can't be discrete in your personal affairs and keep things under control how can I expect you to be able to do better with matters of national security? My personal welfare? The state of the nation? If you lack discretion on matters that would hurt you seriously in a personal manner, how could I trust you to show proper discretion and good judgement when it comes to things that are important TO ME?

You don't have to be a moral person, but you do have to show some reasonable common sense about things if you don't want your actions to cause you trouble. Edwards seems as though he's one of those guys who doesn't get it.

It's real easy to talk about discretion when you don't have members of the press watching you, waiting to see ANYTHING AT ALL they can use in a story.

[subego]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

It's real easy to talk about discretion when you don't have members of the press watching you, waiting to see ANYTHING AT ALL they can use in a story.

There are semi-objective metrics by which this can be rated.

There's getting a bj in the parking lot of Congress: indiscreet.
There's getting nicked by Homeland Security for a bank transfer: discreet.

Then there's Bill Clinton, who was so good at deflecting this sort of **** he could be as indiscreet as he wanted.

Well... up to indiscreetly depositing the baby batter.

[Chuckit]

Who brings their baby to a late-night tryst?

[besson3c]

It's funny when these sort of things happen how some people just claim very fervently to know what really happened, as if we are supposed to just blindly trust their gut feeling as the final authority.

I'm not saying anybody in here does this, but I can just read the silly CNN comments to a story like this now

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Who brings their baby to a late-night tryst?

I'm always more fun if you have someone watching.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I'm always more fun if you have someone watching.

Unless that somebody works for the Enquirer!

[BRussell]

This is really going to kill Edwards' chances at the Democratic presidential nomination.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Who brings their baby to a late-night tryst?

Well, the theory is that Edwards is the father...

Which, if the story is true, makes it being Edwards baby much more credible. For what other reason would you bring a baby to a late night tryst?

[Guy Stone]

I believe!11!1!

She's an alien sent by the planet Qzcyxszxct. She's carrying a small pod believed to be Clintons's.

[Guy Stone]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

This is really going to kill Edwards' chances at the Democratic presidential nomination.

Took me a while.

[davecom]

Here's the mommy:
http://nymag.com/images/2/daily/inte...hunter_lgl.jpg

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

When I look at these things, I always shake my head. I could care who these politicians are screwing (as long as it's not me), but there's something else that comes to light whenever they fail to keep from getting caught:

Lack of discretion.

If you can't be discrete in your personal affairs and keep things under control how can I expect you to be able to do better with matters of national security? My personal welfare? The state of the nation? If you lack discretion on matters that would hurt you seriously in a personal manner, how could I trust you to show proper discretion and good judgement when it comes to things that are important TO ME?

You don't have to be a moral person, but you do have to show some reasonable common sense about things if you don't want your actions to cause you trouble. Edwards seems as though he's one of those guys who doesn't get it.

So you already have the facts to prove these allegations are true?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by subego 

three days later i see it's john edwards the politician, not john edwards the psychic.

:d .

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

So you already have the facts to prove these allegations are true?

Unless what the Enquirer has said is not true, there's way too much smoke for there not to be fire. Besides, I'm willing give Edwards a pass for getting some strange, as I've stated. I don't for the lack of discretion. He'd already been rumored to have been F-ing this woman and fathered a child by her. He has no business meeting her at strange times at night in a hotel and NOT have it fuel rumors. THAT is what "lack of discretion" is all about.

If you don't want the tabloids putting you on a hit list, don't hook up with the women who you are rumored to be humping at strange hours in a hotel you aren't a guest at, after assuring the world that your cancer ridden wife is your one and only. If you do it anyways you are either too stupid to be a leader of any quality or doing exactly what they claim you are doing.

As it's been stated, there are certain "metrics" one can follow in order to ensure that the media doesn't hound you about your extra-marital activities. Politicians have been screwing groupies like rock stars for thousands of years, and it's not likely going to change any time soon.

Back up until the sixties or so, most all politicians got a pass unless the law was involved. JFK had his pants off more than he had them on., RFK did the same and even MLK was busy screwing white women while JEH recorded it all. Pretty much none of which was known to the majority of Americans due to the "different times" we lived in. Back then, you could chase your secretary around the room with your pants down and there really wasn't such a thing as "sexual harassment".

These days, as long as you aren't parading your spouse around telling the world how much you love them and that they are the "only one" for you, or preaching "traditional moral values" while impregnating female staffers - you'll probably get a pass as well as long as you aren't serially indiscreet or the law isn't involved. Those are the facts. Edwards screwed up.

[OldManMac]

IOW, you know for a fact that's what he was doing, as the Enquirer certainly is one of the more reputable rags around. Of course, with your magical powers of logic and deduction, how could anyone question you?

[Shaddim]

Yeah, because he went there just to talk and play PS3...

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

IOW, you know for a fact that's what he was doing, as the Enquirer certainly is one of the more reputable rags around. Of course, with your magical powers of logic and deduction, how could anyone question you?

Does he deny the Enquirer story? Are there others who back the claim that he was where he was said to have been and when he was there (rhetorical question)? Surely he could sue if what the Enquirer wrote is not true?

I don't care if he was there to play PS3, it's a lack of discretion given that there were already rumors that he'd gotten this woman pregnant and unless he's saying he wasn't where he was, then he's not got anything to complain about in getting caught being indiscrete. It's very stupid IF you didn't impregnate the woman who you are rumored to have been having an affair with, to go sneaking around hotels late at night to hang out with her and her infant with your wife nowhere to be found.

You don't have to have any more facts then are currently available (unless you are hopelessly naive) to know that Edwards screwed up.

[smacintush]

stupe–you care waaaay too much about this. Seek help.

[Dakar the Fourth]

The basic gist of logic I'm getting is that if you put yourself in a position that looks suspicious, then you are an idiot, even though you may not have done anything actually wrong. Reason: Because other people are doing wrong things, and manage not to get caught/look suspicious.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

stupe–you care waaaay too much about this. Seek help.

I care virtually NOTHING about this. I'm just pointing out the facts.

If Edwards is innocent, then he needs to stop acting guilty. Men who aren't cheating on their wives don't hang out in hotels alone with the woman who they've been alleged to have gotten pregnant, at odd hours of a night, then hide in bathrooms when they think they've been caught.

I'm all for "innocent until proven guilty" in a court of law. It just doesn't work that way in the court of public opinion.

But in the end, I don't really care if Edwards acts stupid. I already thought he was stupid to begin with.

[Chuckit]

Oh dear, I've had meetings with women whom I had not previously impregnated. Was this a faux pas?

[besson3c]

See, the reason why the media looks to pick apart and sell us stupid stories like this is because we care.

What I'm wondering is if this is the calm before the storm of a media frenzy about this story, or whether they have looked at it and determined that there is nothing there (ala Larry Sinclair)?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Oh dear, I've had meetings with women whom I had not previously impregnated. Was this a faux pas?

In the middle of the night, in a hotel, while you were married?

Edwards could be innocent, but as others have mentioned, if the Enquirer is telling the truth, none of his reactions look good.

If the Enquirer isn't telling the truth, that won't stop the right from running with this, much like the "Obama took the oath of office on the Koran" emails that they've been spreading.

Philly.com seems to have their doubts about the validity of the story:
http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news...le_Hunter.html

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by goMac 

In the middle of the night, in a hotel, while you were married?

...with a woman you'd already been accused of having an affair and a child with?

It doesn't matter what the situation is, if Edwards cared for his family he wouldn't put himself in a situation like that. I'm pretty sure there really wouldn't be any "innocent" explanation which I could give my wife after being caught like that which would make it all go away.

Come on. Use some common sense here people. If the Enquirer didn't just make this up, then Edwards has screwed up - not that it matters that much anyways.

[hokie17]

Being from North Carolina and being a Republican, I'm as happy as a pig in $hit over this.

Well, not that happy. I feel really bad for his wife. But I never liked him.

Matter of fact, in his first Senate campaign against Lauch Faircloth, I was a student at NC State when they both came to campaign there. I stood behind Edwards on CNN holding a Faircloth sign.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Oh dear, I've had meetings with women whom I had not previously impregnated. Was this a faux pas?

C'mon Chuckit. Honestly. Yeah, it was faux pas.