NY Daily News Reports Claims That Elizabeth Edwards Bashed Rielle Hunter in Annonymous Blog Comments and Made John Sleep In Their Barn


The New York Daily News has a number of claims about the John Edwards/ Rielle Hunter affair, including a claim that Elizabeth Edwards has been bashing Rielle Hunter in blog comments, writing under a pseudonym. The article also cites other claims from the proposal for Edwards aide Andrew Young’s book, including that Elizabeth has been talking to a divorce lawyer and that John Edwards and Rielle Hunter have made a sex tape. Additional claims include:

  • Edwards had had affairs with other women on the campaign trail.
  • When Edwards was forced to call off a birthday date with Hunter because he found out that Elizabeth’s cancer had returned, an unsympathetic Hunter screamed at him.
  • After learning of the affair, Elizabeth made John sleep in their barn though she would wake him up with accusatory rants.
  • Hunter relied on a California psychic named Bob to tell her where to live and what to do.
  • Edwards had little affection for John Kerry – once comparing him to Richie Rich – but changed his tune when the Democratic presidential nominee tapped him as his running mate.
  • Ted Kennedy once told Young about a would-be assassin who managed to get into his Senate office because one of his bodyguards was having a gay liaison with one of his top aides.

With regards to the item on Kerry, it has been clear since the 2004 election that John Kerry does not think much of John Edwards.

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. 1
    Catfight Videos says:

    » NY Daily News Reports Claims That Elizabeth Edwards Bashed …: The article also cites other claims from the .. http://bit.ly/EOo2V

  2. 2
    Cuckold Porn Movies says:

    » NY Daily News Reports Claims That Elizabeth Edwards Bashed …: First of all, the right wing has been complai.. http://bit.ly/EOo2V

  3. 3
    Catfight Videos says:

    » NY Daily News Reports Claims That Elizabeth Edwards Bashed …: The article also cites other claims from the .. http://bit.ly/EOo2V

  4. 4
    Eclectic Radical says:

    Presidential and vice presidential candidates not liking each other very much isn’t new. All the way back to Aaron Burr using a gimmick with Federalists to trying to steal presidential votes from his own theoretical presidential candidate Thomas Jefferson.
    John Nance Garner said to a reporter that Roosevelet/Garner was a ‘kangaroo ticket’, claiming to be a stronger presidential candidate than FDR. Roosevelt didn’t even know Truman’s name until after the convention, and Truman hadn’t been involved in any policy meetings with FDR when the latter died. LBJ’s hostile relationship with the Kennedys is legendary, and the sadistic way he treated Hubert Humphrey as his VP is equally legendary despite the fact that he and Humphrey had been friends and politial allies when he chose Humphrey as his running mate.
    My favorite is Ronald Reagan’s reply when asked who he wanted as running mate after winning the nomination in 1980: ‘Anyone but George Bush.’
    Even if one doesn’t share the cordial dislike you feel for Edwards, it’s clear that Edwards and Kerry are such different kinds of personalities and men that I’d be surprised if they DID like each other rather than the reverse.

  5. 5
    Ron Chusid says:

    There are a number of factors which might increase the chances of poor feelings between presidential and vice presidential candidates. Often they come from different factions of a party to balance a ticket. Cases such as George Bush gaining prominence by challenging the eventual winner can lead to problems between the two. In the case of Kerry’s feelings about Edwards, this is partially due to Edwards putting his own presidential ambitions for the future above the good of the 2004 ticket. Edwards is probably not the only running mate who has done that.

  6. 6
    Eclectic Radical says:

    Definitely not. Again we go all the way back to Aaron Burr. 🙂

  7. 7
    libgirl says:

    Although other things in that report are possibly suspect, I find the comment that Edwards trash talked Kerry not unlikely. The fact is that they are extremely different people. Kerry is a genuine war hero and hero of the anti-war effort, who took on Reagan over the Contras and the entire power elite over BCCI.   Edwards, on the other hand either lied or genuinely does not remember if he cast his first vote for Nixon or McGovern. Edwards crafted his success as a trial lawyer to be an effort to give a voice to the powerless, but the truth might be that he did what trial lawyers do.
    There is also the fact that Kerry, by choosing public service rather than making  vast sums of money as a trial lawyer, actually was poorer in his 30s and 40s than John Edwards was.  Both Edwards seem to have still had a sense of inferiority as late as 2004 on having not been born wealthy. Elizabeth shows this in her book where she essentially – even after editing has pages on her concern that her multi-million dollar home be seen by the Kerrys as “good enough”.   Edwards shows this in his labeling Kerry as “Richie Rich”.
    Now, years ago, I saw the Richie Rich movie with my kids.  The fact is the joke is on Edwards. Richie Rich, though born to great wealth, shows very good values, extreme bravery and amazing intelligence.  The fact is the possibly very jealous Edwards hit on a pretty accurate label for Senator Kerry.
    But, the problem is that Edwards, the media’s golden boy,  never accepted his responsibility as a VP. He was given an incredible opportunity by Kerry, over his own gut reaction to Edwards, that demanded in return that Edwards take the subordinate role and do everything asked to help the team win. He even refused to use the campaign’s slogan and thought attacking Bush or defending Kerry could hurt his image – and thought preserving that image more important.
    Now, it is not clear that Edwards been as enthusiastic in the general election, rather than looking like he was going through the motions, and really studied more for the debate  that it could have made a difference, as VPs rarely matter. But, 2004 was close.
    At any rate, we now have a Democratic President and Senator Kerry is a powerful, respected Senator chairing the SFRC.  If Edwards was jealous in 2004, I can’t imagine what names he has for Obama and Kerry now.

  8. 8
    Eclectic Radical says:

    ‘Edwards crafted his success as a trial lawyer to be an effort to give a voice to the powerless, but the truth might be that he did what trial lawyers do.’
    Some of the speculation on this issue is actually one of the things that annoys me about Edwards bashers, even though I’ve never been an Edwards supporter.
    In all probability, Edwards was doing both. Yes, trial lawyers make lots of money if they win or successfully settle. And there is a certain degree of truth in some of the negative stereotypes of lawyers. On the other hand, lawyers who become lawyers because they want to make lots of money go into contracts, corporate law, tax law, or divorce. Criminal lawyers and the majority of civil litigators usually start out with some form of ideals.
    Lawyers who try class action suits and other contingent fee cases take huge financial risks on behalf of their clients. If they lose, they shoulder the court costs and any punitive settlement awarded the defendants and their clients don’t pay them.
    I’m not trying to cast all lawyers as heroes, but class action lawyers tend to believe in their cases. If they don’t, then they have very little incentive to take the risks their choice of profession requires.

  9. 9
    Ron Chusid says:

    We can never know for certain what Edwards thought or his motivations, but I don’t buy the argument that he was not a lawyer after money any less than those going into other fields. He managed to come up with a formula to make lots of money using junk science. He probably did as well or better than he would have done by going into corporate or other forms of law. Sure he took risks if he lost, but he came out well ahead by the way he practiced.

  10. 10
    Eclectic Radical says:

    Edwards certainly made a lot of money and that makes it tricky to sift through his motives. No question. He didn’t become a public defender or go to work for Legal Aid. So clearly he wasn’t out to crusade for the public interest at cut rates.
    Did he come up with a formula to make a lot of money off junk science, though? Or was he presented a convincing case and sold on the junk science? The medical writing on HuffPo is proof that many people find junk science very convincing. Ditto the trashing of Norman Borlaug in his obituary thread by environmentalists whose extremism crossed the line from ‘sane awareness of dangers’ to ‘rabid disciples of junk science.’ We’re both speculating.
    Even if Edwards was entirely insincere, he still raised questions that most other ‘mainstream’ politicians (let’s face it, the Kuciniches, Gravels, and Bernie Sanders of the world are not ever going to come as close to being president or getting the media coverage Edwards got) did not. I suppose this is baldly utilitarian of me, and I certainly never voted for the man, but I find myself wondering whether anyone else with a similar profile is going to talk about povery in 2016. I don’t expect anyone to do so in 2012, with an incumbent Democrat being challenged by conservative Republicans.

2 Trackbacks

Leave a comment