TNR BLOGS

December 01, 2008 | 2:02 PM
December 01, 2008 | 1:00 PM
December 01, 2008 | 12:42 PM

December 01, 2008 | 11:22 AM
December 01, 2008 | 11:10 AM
December 01, 2008 | 9:57 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

December 01, 2008 | 1:36 PM
December 01, 2008 | 12:00 PM
November 29, 2008 | 3:23 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
15.08.2008
An Edwards Fallacy

The NYT reported today (as has the Enquirer, I think) that Rielle was living with Andrew Young, the supposed father of her baby, and his wife. Reader E.C. makes an excellent point:

no woman in her right mind, or even in her wrong mind, would allow her husband's mistress to move in with them, no matter how much cash Fred Baron was paying them.

Sort of obvious perhaps, but something that gets overlooked.

P.S. The only thing worse for Edwards than confronting all this continued speculation would be the silence he's now maintaining. Unfortunately the likeliest conclusion to draw is that there's some legal jeopardy at play here which is outweighing any (dwindling) hopes of salvaging some dignity. Which, in turn, only makes this a more legitimate story for non-tabloid media coverage.

--Michael Crowley

Posted: Friday, August 15, 2008 2:58 PM with 21 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

ChanRobt said:

Women in parts of Utah and Texas do a similar thing all the time.  Only all the concubines are wives.

August 15, 2008 3:06 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Imagine if this clown had won the nomination.

August 15, 2008 3:26 PM

brianlitz3 said:

Michael - It seems like just last week that you made a Friday afternoon post before the story broke...might this mean we should expect something else to break later today?

August 15, 2008 3:37 PM

icarusr said:

I'm really bored of Edwards' phallusies.  Never liked him and good riddance.  Now that is out of contention for Attorney General or Clinton-in-Residence or Boinker in Chief, could we PLEASE move on to something more pertinent or profound, like Obama's Hawaii tan?

August 15, 2008 3:39 PM

a_long said:

no, you're not reading closely enough:

"The precise nature and origins of Ms. Hunter’s relationship with Mr. Young, Mr. Edwards’s campaign aide, is unclear, because neither has spoken publicly about it. But by mid-2007, Ms. Hunter had moved into the gated community in Chapel Hill, N.C., where Mr. Young rented a house with his wife and three children. The Youngs had moved there earlier that year, after selling their house in Raleigh."

This says that Hunter moved into the same "gated community" that Young and his family lived in. It does not say that she moved into their new home with them.  It unquestionably means she moved into a home near the Youngs' home.

In the fall of 2007, "Mr. Baron helped to relocate Mr. Young and Ms. Hunter" to California. Sans wife and three kids.

August 15, 2008 3:46 PM

icarusr said:

By the way, Michael, I think you forgot three important points:

1) How this is certain to harm Obama;

2) How Obama was too quick/too slow (take your pick) in addressing this important and earth shattering development; and

3) How Obama's response (when it comes) is going to be inadequate/wrong/misguided/potentially fatal to his candidacy.

August 15, 2008 3:48 PM

gator27 said:

It's not a legitimate story.  It's just an excuse to gossp

August 15, 2008 3:52 PM

mpatrickhendri said:

Does anyone care about Edwards? He got thumped in the primary and his career is over. Now he will go back to NC and sit on a giant pile of money and make excuses for his tacky behavior until nobody cares enough to listen. Worse yet, he was a Clemson football player. His judgement has been impaired since that fatal mistake.

August 15, 2008 3:58 PM

ecolumbu said:

A_long -- you missed the end of the article:

"When Ms. Hunter, her baby and the Youngs moved to California around the end of last year, they all initially lived in the same residence, according to an associate of Mr. Young and Mr. Edwards. But the arrangement strained relationships, and Ms. Hunter moved into a different residence, which cost about $6,000 a month in rent. The associate believed that the lease on the home where the Youngs had been staying was to run out on Friday. "

August 15, 2008 4:03 PM

cal80 said:

Crowley, your real calling is with the National Enquirer.  Go for it!

August 15, 2008 4:15 PM

ChanRobt said:

re tep, If only this clown had won the nomination.

But, hey, that's from a reciprocal partisna.

August 15, 2008 4:17 PM

ChanRobt said:

gator27 writes, "...It's not a legitimate story.  It's just an excuse to gossp..."

It is an excuse to gossip.  But, it is also a legitimate story if Edwards or surrogates spent campaign money to support Hunter or hush her up.  If the $114k paid for her video work was excessive (hard to prove unless she shot very little footage).  etc

Meanwhile, since Edwards was at least theoretically a contender for the veep spot or a cabinet spot, a sex scandal is relevant.  

It's always a circular argument.  To those who feel there is or should not be any such thing as a "sex scandal," then this is irrelevant.

To those who answer, in our society as it exists, a goodly percentage of people do consider adulterous sex a scandal and an indication of a politician's trustworthiness in other realms, then relevant it is.

Until the U.S. morphs into France, you're stuck with these, gator27.

August 15, 2008 4:24 PM

a_long said:

ecolumbu: damn, you're right. my bad.

August 15, 2008 4:37 PM

a_long said:

WHOA, wait a minute: that Times piece says

"When Ms. Hunter, her baby and the Youngs moved to California around the end of last year, they all initially lived in the same residence, according to an associate of Mr. Young and Mr. Edwards."

But Hunter's baby was born on FEB. 27, 2008.

That is at the very least sloppy writing. If the timing is correct, then saying "Hunter and her baby" is nonsensical; it would only make sense to say "a pregnant Hunter and the Youngs moved."

But maybe the timing is incorrect, in which case this Times reporting is called into question.

August 15, 2008 4:46 PM

ecolumbu said:

Good catch, a_young.  But I've seen the living-together thing elsewhere.  Apparently Baron himself has said it -- see end of this article:

www.newsobserver.com/.../1176206.html

"Baron told The New York Post that Hunter, Young and Young's family lived together in California until tension in the household grew."  Hmm -- can't imagine why there would be any tension.

August 15, 2008 4:59 PM

scire said:

the whole thing gets more and more bizarre . It's like a fictional account of a rising star politician and his fall. If this is true, what the HECK was Edwards thinking??????????

August 15, 2008 5:15 PM

ecolumbu said:

Oops, I meant a_long, not a_young .  I wasn't insinuating anything, I swear!

August 15, 2008 5:32 PM

a_long said:

haha! I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman. Ms. Hunter.

August 15, 2008 6:03 PM

aeromonas said:

"Worse yet, he was a Clemson football player."

Huh?  John Edwards did his undergraduate work at NC State, and I seriously doubt he played football there.  I was living in NC during his 1998 Senate campaign, and I'm fairly sure that had Edwards played ball for the Pack, I'd have heard about it.

August 16, 2008 10:20 AM

aeromonas said:

Okay, I stand (partially) corrected.  According to Wikipedia, Edwards transfered to NC State from Clemson.  It also mentions that he was "a high school fotball star."  So maybe he did join the Tigers as a walk-on or something.  I have to think though that if he was a scholarship athele, we'd have heard about it.  Also, he wouldn't have transfered to State.

August 16, 2008 10:25 AM

icarusr said:

"a high school fotball star."

I can say with considerable confidence that no high school football star from my HS (Malden, Mass.) would 1) be caught dead getting a $400 haircut at any point in his life; and b) look far more beautiful than his wife, mistress or er, partner of either gender.  Which high school did he go to again?

August 16, 2008 4:39 PM