Edwards Scandal Makes Huffington Post

So far there has been very little in either the mainstream media or liberal blogosphere on the Edwards/Rielle Hunter scandal, but we can now add Huffington Post to the liberal blogs who are covering it. Lee Stranahan writes:

The truth is that I believe anyone who looks into the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter affair story will see that Edwards has, at best, acted in a very suspicious manner for over a year now. When the Larry Craig story was breaking, I didn’t buy his particular line of bullshit and I don’t buy Edwards’s either after I’ve spent the last couple of days Googling with my wife. (That’s not as dirty as it sounds.) At first, I was skeptical of the National Enquirer story catching Edwards leaving the Beverly Hills Hilton Hotel at 2:45am because there were no pictures and the tabloids aren’t reliable. Now it turns out that Edwards was at the hotel, so was Ms. Hunter, and that he when he saw reporters he hid in the bathroom until security guards came and got him.

I got more suspicious after reading a story on The Huffington Post from last September by Sam Stein detailing the weird story of some short webisodes about John Edwards that mysteriously were pulled off the internet. Read it yourself here and fold it into the mix of the current allegations.

Let’s go with the assumption that Edwards is innocent for a moment; he didn’t have the affair so the baby isn’t his. If he didn’t do anything wrong then it seems like he’d have good reasons to stop the rumors. A DNA test months ago would have ended all speculation about the paternity of the baby. Isn’t that a better, less suspicious move than pulling down all the videos that Rielle Hunter helped produce about him for his campaign? And if there are rumors and you’re innocent, WHY go visit the subject of those rumors at a hotel and leave at 2:45 in the morning? Why hide in the bathroom when reporters catch you leaving? These actions don’t make any more sense to me than Craig’s ‘wide stance/dropped my toilet paper’ defense did.

If he is innocent I could see where Edwards might not feel obligated to respond to The National Enquirer by providing a DNA test. (Actually if he is innocent I’d expect him to sue for a fortune given his history). While not having such a DNA test does not prove his guilt, I agree that otherwise his behavior looks very suspicious.

Stranahan believes this will become “a tsunami-sized scandal for the Democratic Party.” He notes that the progressive blogosphere is ignoring the story:

The progressive blogosphere is ignoring this story at its own peril because it’s going to be big. At this moment, there’s a weird state of denial about the entire thing. As of 4pm Saturday, nothing at all on TalkingPointMemo.com. DailyKos did a dismissive post making fun of the Enquirer. FireDogLake? Nothing. Americablog? Nada. These are some of my favorite blogs, by the way.

Maybe his favorite blogs have been in denial, but Liberal Values has previously noted this story here and here.

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. 1
    MsJoanne says:

    i completely agree with Stranahan’s take.  We should not be seen as the hypocrites that the Republican’s are. 

    I have to say what really would piss me off, if this is true, would be the jeopardy that he put the entire party in – had he gotten the nod.

    That would have been the worst thing that could have hit our country.  It’s bad enough that this happened.  Could you imagine if it hit as he was running for president?

    I don’t care who’s screwing whom…unless it’s me, an American citizen.  But the reality is that this country is sadly Puritan.  Bush, to me is the prime example of why I want my president to be getting as much as he or she can.  If Bush needs to invade and occupy another country as a substitute penis, give me someone else, anyone else – and let them get laid often.


  2. 2
    kl says:

    “i completely agree with Stranahan’s take.  We should not be seen as the hypocrites that the Republican’s are.”

    Totally! I especially hate the way Republicans project their own failings onto their enemies.

    P.S. I don’t know what you learned in biology class, but blowjobs don’t make babies.

  3. 3
    Lee Stranahan says:

    I have added LiberalValues to my RSS reader so I’ll be more in the know next time.

    Steve Benen at CarpetbaggerReport also mentioned my HuffPo piece but the progressive blogs still aren’t talking about it. I have been linked to by quite a few conservative blogs…and that’s…ya know…weird.

    But my piece is currently the blog with the most readers on HuffPo – over 117,000 right now. That shows me that if and when the story breaks, it’s going to be as big as I thought.

  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:


    I believe that Ms Joanne’s reference to blow jobs is to compare the actions of Clinton (which were treated as an impeachable offense) to the acts of Bush (who was not impeached), and not to draw a connection between blow jobs and babies.

  5. 5
    MsJoanne says:

    Ron, you’re absolutely correct.  I had assumed that that would have been a given again proving ASS U ME.

    Impeachment for consensual sex = good

    Impeachment for lying us into war, outing a CIA agent, politicizing every governmental agency – including those intended to protect The People, breaking laws on hiring = bad.

  6. 6
    Brett says:

    Indeed, Joanne, we all really dodged a bullet when Iowans this January did not fall for Edwards’s charlatanism and chose Obama over that political phony. Just the allegations alone, and they are looking more and more true by the day, would have been a damaging blow to the chances of the Democratic Party this fall.
    As for the impact of this story now, which Obama as the nominee, I must disagree with Stranahan’s assumption that this will be a “tsunami-sized scandal” for the Democrats. John Edwards is NOT the Democratic presidential nominee, nor is he considered a credible contender for the VP. He is not a public official, as Eliot Spitzer was, and, so far as I can tell, no crime was committed here. If the story is true, then Edwards committed these acts as a private citizen, and so nothing criminal occurred here (excluding Republican defintions of morality.) Also, from a purely political perspective, which is what it all really comes down to, Edwards has no actual political import. He is a man of the past, twice-failed in his bids to be the nominee, and so I think he and his tribulations will be ignored by the media. Why should they devote their time to a washed-up candidate? Much like the controversy surrounding failed candidate Chris Dodd, who has been accused of accepting favorable mortgage payments reductions from Countrywide Financial–a possible breach of ethics for the Banking Committee member–I don’t think Edwards’s indiscretion will become a sensation if and when it breaks.

    Anyway, thank you very much, Ron, for keeping us all up to date on this growing scandal. There would be no way that I would know anything about this potentially important story if I didn’t follow your blog. Thanks, and I’ll be sure to stay tuned for any further developments.

  7. 7
    Ron Chusid says:

    Agree, the only way it would be a serious problem for the Democrats (as opposed to Edwards personally) would be if Obama had chosen him as running mate. I’m not sure how much coverage, if any, it will get but it shouldn’t have any political implications beyond embarrassment for Edwards.

Leave a comment