This is going to require quite a bit of background, because apparently there’s a near-total media blackout on the “John Edwards might just have an illegitimate baby” story. Here’s what I’ve been able to piece together so far:
In 2006, former vice presidential candidate and North Carolina Senator John Edwards hired a filmmaker named Rielle Hunter to make videos documenting the run-up to his 2008 presidential campaign. The videos seemed oddly… worshipful. Even for an Edwards supporter! One video in particular seemed to indicate that we should all vote for Edwards because of how he looks in a pair of jeans:
Irony alert:
“I’ve come to the personal conclusion that I actually want the country to see who I am. Who I really am. But I don’t know what the result of that will be. But for me personally, I’d rather be successful, or unsuccessful, based on who I really am.”
But then the videos suddenly disappeared from his site in Sept. ’07, according to Sam Stein at the Huffington Post. The Edwards campaign refused to release them or explain why they were pulled, but they still leaked out. (You can watch them here, at least for now.) Stein also found it exceedingly difficult to find any information on Hunter.
Then, last December, Edwards denied having an affair and an illegitimate child with Hunter after the National Enquirer spotted her, visibly pregnant, living in North Carolina. She had recently moved from New Jersey into a very exclusive gated community just a few miles from Edwards’ campaign HQ, in a million-dollar mansion rented for her by an Edwards employee named Andrew Young. (Correction: More specifically, Young was Edwards’ assistant.)
Young then stepped forward as the baby’s father. Some people questioned this, because Young lived just down the street from Hunter’s new house and even had her over for dinner with his family. Was Young her sugardaddy or her babysitter? (Babymamasitter?)
When ENQUIRER reporters contacted Young in person at his home on Dec. 12, he became furious — and denied he was Andrew Young.
He also denied knowing “any Rielle Hunter,” yelling at the top of his voice: “You don’t even know who I am!” But when his wife called him “Andrew,” he shot her a dirty look.
(Much more after the jump…)
Keep in mind that even though this story came from the National Enquirer, Edwards addressed it immediately. (8/2 Update: So did Hunter.) He didn’t deny that Hunter had moved 500 miles closer to him even though she hadn’t worked for him in almost a year, or that one of his own campaign workers had set her up with a big house, a BMW, and prenatal care. Edwards just said the kid wasn’t his. Hey, he couldn’t be held responsible for every single thing done by very single person in his campaign, could he?
A month later he dropped out of the race, “so that history can blaze its path.”
Fast-forward six months. Last Tuesday morning at 2:40 AM, reporters from the Enquirer allegedly caught Edwards leaving Hunter’s room at the Beverly Hilton in Los Angeles, after he’d been in there for almost 5 hours. Hunter, the baby, and Edwards were all driven there by a man named Bob McGovern, who was also the man who rented the room. Ahem, allegedly. (8/2 Update: More on McGovern here.) When the Enquirer reporters — who had learned of the planned liaison and checked into the hotel the day before in anticipation of the event — tried to ask Edwards what he was doing there in the middle of the night, allegedly he ran all over the hotel trying to avoid them before finally barricading himself in a public restroom. Hotel security finally, not to mention allegedly, escorted him out 15 minutes later.
The Enquirer has now filed a criminal complaint against the hotel because they say their reporters were roughed up by security, even though they were registered guests and Edwards wasn’t. And Fox News has spoken to one of the security guards, who confirms that Edwards was there when the Enquirer says he was.
And, unlike Edwards’ immediate, forceful denial of the earlier Enquirer story, all he had to say this time — when somebody finally thought to ask a couple of days later — was the following:
Too bad we can’t put YouTube videos in the dictionary, because that one belongs in the entry for non-denial denial.
So. You’d think something like this would be splashed all over every single newspaper in the country, wouldn’t you? Even if only to do their usual trick: “We’re not claiming this happened, but some are saying…” Come on, a presidential candidate allegedly fathers an illegitimate baby on the campaign trail, allegedly goes to great lengths to cover it up, and then is caught leaving the mistress’s hotel room in the dead of night and gets cornered like an animal in a public toilet, allegedly? That’s gold!
But nope, suddenly the press doesn’t want to rush to judgment. Larry Craig only wishes the media had shown this kind of restraint.
All of which is necessary background to explain what’s going on right now at Wikipedia. According to Gawker – not exactly a bastion of conservatism — Wikipedia editors are currently in an all-out war over whether to even mention the scandal in the John Edwards entry. The minute anyone so much as adds the name “Rielle,” someone else deletes it. (You can follow the debate here.) As Gawker points out, this is inconsistent with Wikipedia’s treatment of pretty much any other political sex scandal. And maybe I just don’t know my history, but none of those scandals involved a presidential candidate siring a bastard child in the middle of his campaign, behind the back of his dying wife. Allegedly.
So what do you think? Can this media and Wiki silence be chalked up to:
- Liberal bias?
- A desire not to make Elizabeth Edwards’ life even more miserable?
- A belief that once a presidential candidate drops out of the race, he suddenly ceases to be a public figure, no matter how many public appearances he makes to keep himself in contention for vice president (or at least Attorney General)?
- Disdain for the Enquirer, despite all the other solid stories they’ve broken that were eventually picked up by more “legitimate” media?
- Some sort of mysterious new virus that removes all traces of journalistic curiosity?
I’m going with the virus explanation. That one makes the most sense.
Allegedly.
P.S. I just have to add this great quote from a Dec. ’06 Newsweek story about those Edwards campaign videos that allegedly brought the two of them together:
The Webisodes are the brainchild of Rielle Hunter, a filmmaker who met Edwards at a New York bar where Edwards was having a business meeting. “I didn’t think it was John Edwards,” Hunter recalls, “because the public persona did not mesh at all with the person who was sitting in front of me.” Hunter pitched Edwards on the documentaries as a medium for bringing the “real John Edwards” to the people.
Edwards still has a ways to go. In the midst of a short theme sequence that begins each Webisode, the camera lingers over the former senator’s behind as he tucks a starched white shirt into his pants. Still, Hunter, now under contract with Edwards’s organization, says she sees the untucked John Edwards coming more and more to the fore. “When he gets really tired, he’ll jump back into that automatic pilot thing,” she says. “But he’s aware of it, he doesn’t want it to happen.”
I’ll bet in retrospect, he wishes he’d stayed tucked.
P.P.S. And it keeps getting less and less weird… According to an Oct. ’07 followup story by the aforementioned Sam Stein at HuffPo, Hunter used to have her own site called Being Is Free. Apparently she deleted it sometime on 2007, and there’s no longer even a copy of it at the Internet Wayback Machine. (Update: It’s now been mirrored here.) But it must’ve still been there last October, because Stein links to it and summarizes its contents:
There is virtually no mention of filmmaking or politics on the site. And there is little indication as to what Hunter did professionally – beyond an involvement in various spiritual quests – before she and her partner, Mimi Hockman, started Midline Groove Production in the spring of 2006. As Colin Weil, a consultant to the Edwards webisodes told the Huffington Post: “Neither of them had done tons and tons of stuff before hand… The whole [Edwards' taping] was pretty organic.”
On the deleted pages, the 44-year-old Hunter (formerly known as Lisa Druck) discusses her former hard partying days, her search for enlightenment, and her issues with drugs and debt. There is a 2005 interview she did with one-time boyfriend Jay McInerney, in which the celebrated novelist reveals that Hunter was the basis for Alison Poole, the main character of his book, Story of My Life.
“It was narrated in the first person,” McInerney writes in the intro to the interview, “from the point of view of an ostensibly jaded, cocaine-addled, sexually voracious 20-year old who was, shall we say, inspired by Lisa [aka Rielle].”
I honestly don’t know how this whole thing can get more bizarre. The crazier this woman’s life gets, the less the media seems to care. It’s possible that there’s somebody else out there who can put “Once inspired the main character in a Jay McInerney novel” or “Once had a secret love child with a guy who was running for president” on their resume. But who else can claim both?
P.P.P.S. I take back what I just now said about this story being as bizarre as it could possibly be. According to Jeremy Taylor at 23/6, the Alison Poole character also appeared in a novel by McInerney’s friend Bret Easton Ellis. Maybe you’ve heard of it: American Psycho. In the book, apparently Poole shows up only long enough to be brutally sodomized by pro/antagonist Patrick Bateman. (Well, at least she didn’t have to worry about getting pregnant.) According to IMDB’s bio of Ellis:
In his novel “American Psycho”, he borrowed a character from Tana Janowitz’s short story collection “Slaves of New York” (Stash) and a character from Jay McInerney’s book “Story of My Life” (Alison Poole). In a recent interview he said that the inclusion of Alison Poole was because he was upset at McInerney over something (he couldn’t recall) and his revenge was to have her attacked by Patrick Bateman.
Was she in the movie too? I can’t remember. One thing I can remember: none of this is newsworthy!
P.P.P.P.S. Alex Beam at the Boston Globe had the same thought I’m having right now: How did this very strange woman manage to stay under the radar for so long? Beam explains. (I think this might be the first mention of Rielle Hunter in a major American newspaper since last Tuesday? But don’t worry, it’s in an opinion column, not an actual news story. At least the Globe didn’t send out a memo telling their people not to discuss this story whatsoever.)
P.P.P.P.P.S. Writer/photographer/filmmaker Lee Stranahan has some further thoughts on why you have to admit this is a story, even if you wish it weren’t. Further proof: It’s currently the most-viewed post at HuffPo.
Related posts:
- The John Edwards Anti-Scandal Continues to Not Continue Note: As I was typing up my latest opus on...
- Five Questions About the Edwards Scandal, Now That It’s No Longer “Alleged” Now that the media are finally talking about the John...
- John Edwards Confesses? That’s what the National Enquirer is saying. And they’re the...
This stuff is friggin’ JUICY! Secret baby mamas, hotel shenanigans, dying spouses, media cover-up. Sounds like a kick-ass TV movie or soap storyline.
And I thought we’d never have anything other than his hair to talk about…
Wow, real “deer in the headlights” reaction on that second video. Except the deer eventually figure out what to do.
Although deer don’t mate for life either.
Wow…when you’re locking yourself in a hotel bathroom because the National Enq. is after you, it is seriously time to re-evaluate your life. That’s desperate. Allegedly.
Lord Simon, talk about putting heavy questions out there.
This is why we like you.
OK, first, I wanted to do the honest thing, but I’m Canadian, so right off, I can’t be part of the red state/blue state wars. My Canadian friends and family describe me as conservative; my American friends and family describe me as liberal, here I’m called a “Red Tory” if that helps for full disclosure, which I know nobody cares about, but I like to say it.
IMO, the conservative media can’t run with it because of McCain’s dodgy treatment of his first wife. Yes, she repeatedly does the loyal wife act; explains the marriage was over when he decided to “move on”. I don’t think it helps. His camp (and by necessity the GOP) like to avoid the topic. They spent too much time making themselves into the upright citizens brigade. Liberal might feel they don’t have to cover it, since it hasn’t taken off on the other side. A few may hope it dies, believing, IMO completely hopelessly, that Edwards still had a chance of a cabinet post. More likely, believing it will hurt crafting the GOP as corrupt, lying, and/or evil and the Dems as the cavalry coming to save everyone. Using absolutes and moralizing in politics leads to this type of a bind, and it can’t work, human nature being what it is. It’s tying up the media on both sides and I do also think that the tags on media aren’t working, they want what sells, in the main.
There seems to be few interview chances anyway, not too many rushing to attack (out of fear?) or defend (not many who like him?) to fill airtime. I never thought most Dems liked him, targeting by Ann Coulter, (whom I despise) gained him defenders by default.
Elizabeth gained him great respect on both sides, he couldn’t approach his level of success without her. There is the irony, what she got back. Now, I think it’s possible, Simon, that there are those editors who would keep this under wraps for her. She will die in agony, which will leave her children broken; they don’t need more pain, but those sentiments went out 30 years ago. I also think he is the one who has done this alone, after all, he kept running, her illness wasn’t a stop to ambition. I thought he had no consideration for her before, and it pains me that there might be editors who have more concern for her than her husband. Pains but doesn’t surprise me. More likely, nobody wants to jump in until they figure how to play it. They don’t want the complaints that there is no point to this, you’re hurting the family, etc etc. Not that it hurts ratings, but it’s the general cry that goes up. I hate it since that prompts coverage of the media covering how they cover stories.
Hmm, jealous of the Enquirer….
While they should be mad at the scoop, which they had every chance to follow up on, after the first stories, when Edwards was more relevant to the campaign.
I vote for H*ll yes. There is no doubt The Enquirer has done some excellent reporting, largely on crime. That burns those who see themselves in the “real news” vein, the ultimate in hypocrisy. I don’t think that the low level of journalism we have in general, now, should be offended by the Enquirer. Imagine it was Brad Pitt caught in a hotel with his on the side baby mama, while Saint Angie languished bravely at home. Imagine the 24/7 coverage we would have been subjected to already. The “legitimate” press would be all over that story, they shouldn’t kid themselves.
Because YOU ARE A LIBERAL, you don’t have the stomach to admit to liberal bias in the Axis Media yourself…smells like you need to do a story on yourself right here on Deceiver!
Obama Edwards 2008!
Now there’s a reaction I honestly wasn’t expecting. Thank you for keeping things interesting!
It doesn’t mean I don’t love your website or work overall, it’s fantastic.
I don’t think it’s an intentional black out. I don’t think anyone is reporting it because I don’t think anyone cares about John Edwards.
Did anybody care about Larry Craig before that whole deal?
Simon, the answer is simple. The media is trying to win the election for Obama, they’re already busy not reporting on McCain, though McCain isn’t doing anything worthy of being reported, the Iraq war, though they’re hoping Afghanistan (the “legitimate war” so it can’t be protested) doesn’t pick up so they don’t have to not report on that too, the hurricane that hit Texas, those things are usually news fodder for a week, so they don’t have the time to decide on whether or not to report on one of those Democrats that isn’t Obama.
C’mon Simon, the Enquirer’s on the case, what more do you need?
Made up allegation of McCain affair with lobbyist = front page, high profile NY Times story.
Actual affair by Dem VP candidate = total media blackout.
The media repeatedly prove themselves to be profoundly dishonest, nitwit scum and the nation is being damaged by their unwillingness and apparent inability to report facts and simple stories with any integrity or honesty.
I have to agree with the poster who said this is just a sign that John Edwards dalliances don’t interest the general public because he really isn’t all that relevant. Hell, Elizabeth probably hooked him up with someone because she knows he is dying. Didn’t you see it when Kimberly did that for Michael on Melrose Place?
Oh this so Bush’s fault!
It’s really very simple, Edwards has money and influence, he has used both effectively to keep the lid on this and the Liberal Media are more than willing to go along with it since it could put a blemish on the Messiah Obama. Have to keep even the smell of any sort of corruption off of BHO.
In response to your Alison Poole query – she was not in the movie, but she did return as a character in his 1998 novel, Glamorama. If I remember correctly, Alison Poole was a coke-addled slut who wandered around her apartment in an Aerosmith bathrobe. Knowing what I do now about her inspiration, it sounds like a pretty dead-on characterization.
This story is really nothing new. Any student of American History will recall the hidden scandal of Warren G. Harding and Nan Britten.
As far as the media has any sensibility regarding Elizabeth Edwards: this same media hounded Patsy Ramsay about JonBenet’s death while Patsy was fighting for her life against ovarian cancers. And, the media was wrong; the Ramsays have been vindicated.
Except for this “scandal,” John Edwards is sooooo white-bread-boring … which may explain the lack of media coverage.
However, dishonesty is dishonesty. If he is/was having an affair, especially while campaigning for public office, then we have the right to know. If he is/was misusing public funds to support his second family, then we have the right to know.
You put the ‘juice’ in ‘juicy’, my friend.
Thank God I didn’t vote for Warren G Harding. I knew there was something wrong with that guy. Cheatin’ scoundrel.
He’s not relevant, but it would still be nice to hear about this. And since when has he media ever showed compassion to perceived victims?
There was a media blackout of the Larry Craig scandal until after he pleaded GUILTY and his plea was entered into the court records. IIRC, one blogger raised a ruckus after the arrest, but no one else payed the story any attention. Sitting Senator and outspoken anti-gay Craig’s admission of guilt to the charge of soliciting anonymous homosexual public potty sex is what drew the media sharks into the shallow water. Craig was hoping a quick plea would keep it under the radar, but hot on the heels of the Foley affair and a bad year in general for hypocritical “family values” Republicans, the opposite happened.
Edwards is no longer in public office, he dropped out of the Presidential race months ago, his wife doesn’t seem the least concerned about the rumors (and for all we know she could be like Jackie O, helping him pick out ties for his dates) and Edwards is just plain boring anyhow. He lost in two successive primary seasons. For the love of god, Democrats found John Kerry to be more dynamic and electable. His wife is eminently more popular than he is. He never preached a message of sexual morality, so the press couldn’t even play up the fallen angel angle. What would be the hook? That his baby mama a has-been pop fiction writer back in the day and said the kind of dumb stuff that dumb, inexperienced, urban 20 year olds say to each other?
What if she denies it? What then? How far do you want the media to go pursuing this personal story that doesn’t really effect any of us in the public in any discernible manner? Should they sue to get a paternity test? Please tell me the conclusion that you believe is reasonable.
If by “media blackout” you mean “nobody had any idea who he was,” okay.
And is still being buzzed about as Obama’s running mate, or was until last week. (Did you happen to notice the question he answered right before the one that caught him flatfooted?) Even now, he’s leading in the latest Rasmussen poll. He’s still got delegates at the convention, and was expected to speak. He is a public figure. He puts quite a bit of effort into it, actually.
I’d be interested to know how you’ve come to this strange conclusion.
You have got to be kidding. You’re actually trying to say there’s no story in a past and possibly future candidate for Vice President of the United States of America having a child out of wedlock, pushing his assistant out in front of the public as the real father, and sneaking around in the middle of the night to see the mistress. Your nose for news has a serious sinus infection.
Then you report that she denies it. Key word: Report.
You say that as if they’d even started, let alone gone too far.
How many stories in the news every day really “effect” you in any discernible manner? If they don’t, does that mean they’re not news?
You’re asking for a conclusion where there hasn’t even been a beginning. I’d say reporting on an obvious news story would be a fine start. Oh yeah, I forgot, it’s not enough to write down the facts. Journalism has to have a narrative.
As a North Carolinian, I find news on my former senator and current neighbor pretty interesting. So GGM, why is none of this playing even on our local news? We hear all kinds of stuff about our other local politicians, why is Edwards getting a pass in Raleigh?
Seriously. This is the most flimsy piece of crap article on this site yet. When your only “sources” are the national enquirer and a handful of tid-bits from assorted nut-jobs, you kind of need to look back and reflect on your journalism skills. The this site is a far cry from the smoking-gun.
Don’t forget all the other nutjobs I used as sources, like Newsweek, HuffPo, MSNBC, Gawker, Wikipedia, CBS, the BBC, CJR, and the Boston Globe. Koo-koo! [twirls finger around ear]
Huh, I thought he was running for Vice President of the United States, not Vice President of Marriage. I don’t care who McCain sleeps with, either. I would be surprised if there were any successful politicians left who haven’t cheated on their spouses on the campaign trail or in office. Lame story.
Yeah, who cares if Edwards had an illegitimate baby and is paying off the mother to keep quiet. And paying off the guy who claims to be the real father. And running around at night to see her and their baby. Boring!
“Huh, I thought he was running for Vice President of the United States, not Vice President of Marriage.”
Didn’t see that stopping him in from trotting out his wife and kids at every photo-op he could as Kerry’s running mate. If you are a public figure in this country, you have no personal life. And considering how entwined politics and morals are in this country, you don’t get to divorce your private and public lives.
This is lovely and one of the many reasons why I frequent Deceiver. Andddd yes, I can see why main media passed on this, much like many people who commented passed on it.
Since Edwards is totally outta the race, he’s not dirt-worthy. He didn’t even do it with a transsexual or pull a gay-dude-bathroom scene.
Then you add all this allegedly stuff, which is really 3/4ths main media not covering it. If they really did cover it the story would carry much more weight (and who knows, maybe it will start to fly in a few days/weeks).
Personally, the guy always came across to me like a JFK-wannabe. Only JFK had nicer hair
People keep saying this as if it makes any sense. He wants to be Vice President. He’s been polling well and still might speak at the convention. It’s not like he’s been hiding from the public. Well, not before last week, anyway.