What Rielle Hunter Told Me

NEWSWEEK

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: techresmgt @ 08/10/2008 10:28:02 AM

    Why is this woman getting a 'free pass' on this deal? She is as guilty as Edwards, she KNEW he was married. Oh, I forgot, she's a woman, she gets to play 'victim' and misunderstood, used, and abused. Men better wake up; quick, fast, and in a hurry.

  • Posted By: coll.env @ 08/10/2008 10:04:37 AM

    Who can guess why John Edwards fell in this bucket of crap >

  • Posted By: benbrennabu @ 08/10/2008 8:50:31 AM

    If Edwards is to be damned in the media, then the same news outlets should be fair and investigate the affair McCain had while he was married and his wife was recovering from an accident. ABC News just stated that McCain"strayed" while married. If Edwards political career is over why not McCain's?

  • Posted By: woodlandmonk @ 08/10/2008 4:56:06 AM

    This story is certain to be a pop hit. Great grist for soap opera fans, religious zealots and red pennant-waving partisans.

    But we???re faced with some real crises in this country - health care, energy and the environment, to name just three. If we had a leader whose vision and pluck would help resolve these issues, short term and long, I wouldn???t care if he/she was hooking up with Paris Hilton and Larry Craig on the same weekend. In fact, I???d volunteer to chauffeur.

  • Posted By: free2008 @ 08/09/2008 10:14:21 PM

    Something doesn't add up with your story. You say you interviewed her late Nov 2006 and she said she was fired then a few weeks later (assume Dec. 2006) you talked again. However, HuffPo published a photo today with Hunter on the plane with Edwards dated Dec. 29, 2006 to Reno, NV from NH and the photographer was Robert Scoble. If she was already fired,why was she on a plane with him? There are also reports her last payment from the campaign was April 2007. It isn't adding up.

    • Posted By: Rose J. @ 08/09/2008 10:47:54 PM

      Something doesn't add up because Rielle Hunter aka Lisa Druck is a liar and blackmailer.

      • Posted By: free2008 @ 08/10/2008 12:16:23 AM

        I suspect it is Edwards who is lying and that his affair went on long past 2006.

        Here is the photo and another one, plus the photographer's write-up on the subject:

        http://scobleizer.com/2008/08/08/front-row-seat-to-john-edwards-sex-scandal/#comments

        • Posted By: Rose J. @ 08/10/2008 4:49:22 AM

          Robert Scolberzier's photo of Rielle was taken in 2006.

          But what a sell out. He must be really hard up for money or starved for attention, to sell that photo and capitalize on this situation. That's too bad.

  • Posted By: okie3 @ 08/10/2008 4:15:52 AM

    I'm glad we're getting some better pictures, thanks Newsweek. The picture CNN had the poor thing looked like Camilla Bowles. Actually she's looks hot, I'm thinking John is an OK guy after all, just another average guy with a fat, average wife who got some assurance he's still got 'it'.

    • Posted By: sharenews @ 08/10/2008 4:23:06 AM

      I know what you mean. You hit it right on the money. I could not place who it was that she looked like but yes, now that you mention it, she does look like very much like, Camilla Bowles in some of the shots I have seen on some news sites of this other woman. . LOL

  • Posted By: DeeVee5 @ 08/09/2008 10:39:10 PM

    to free2008

    I'm afraid we''ll have to disagree on Carter, he was a wimp. I hated Reagan's anti-environmental policies, but he did the world a lot of good in helping to bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the fall of the Berlin wall. If only we had politicians today with the guts to try and bring down the evil empire that is Communist China, as well as handing a much-needed crushing blow to radical Islam and its insane ideology of global hegemony.

    As far as "cheating" - no, it's not a form of "violence." Only physical violence is violence; and even that is not always bad. (Police, soldiers, and professional boxers could all be accused of "violence.") I do believe that honesty in relationships is important, yes. But I also believe that charismatic alpha males are naturally driven to bed many women, and that society has made that unnecessarily difficult for them, by passing laws against polygamy and adultery, etc.

    I don't know what was going on inside John Edwards' marriage, and neither do you. It's possible that his wife was not available to him sexually, and that he was deeply unhappy in the marriage at that time. I don't believe anyone should stay trapped in an unhappy marriage; but I also realize that many people are frightened to leave that "security" without the added impetus of another love interest. I have no idea whether or not John Edwards was in love with Rielle Hunter, and neither do you. None of us knows anything about the inside dynamics of this triangle, which is why I feel that it's not really any of our business.

    It's possible that the Edwards' had an "open marriage" that permitted casual sex with other partners. Granted, it's unlikely; especially in this age of STD's and also because they consider themselves to be Christians. But without knowing the details, we're in a poor position to pass judgement. I said that when Bill Clinton was being harrassed, and I would also say the same about John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King.

    If so many of our greatest leaders have been men who were driven to bed numerous women, maybe it's time for us to take another look at the expectations of lifelong monogamy, and whether it really serves us. If it's not really compatible with human nature -- at least, the nature of powerful, charismatic alpha males -- then maybe it's time to dump it. There is no rational reason why polygamy should be illegal. Most cultures in the world allowed polygamy, until the Judeo-Christian ethic tried to stamp it out. Today we need to ground our ethics in philosophy, not religion. If polygamy involves the mutual consent of all parties and harms nobody, then it should be perfectly legal.

    • Posted By: star3 @ 08/09/2008 11:00:51 PM

      Dee Vee 5, I have two words for your comment: B.S.!

      • Posted By: free2008 @ 08/10/2008 12:04:13 AM

        "But I also believe that charismatic alpha males are naturally driven to bed many women, and that society has made that unnecessarily difficult for them, by passing laws against polygamy and adultery, etc."

        Lady, you are in SERIOUS need of some self esteem! First of all, Edwards an alpha male? LMAO! The guy is a scrawny effeminent wimp!

        Yes, cheating is emotional and spirtual violence. It does as much and often worse damage than physical violence. But since you like violence, I guess that is a mute point.

        Do you excuse rapists this way? Do you realize at those polygamist sites many children are raped? Boo, hoo, the poor fricken alpha males.

        As a man, I find you comments reprehensible and pathetic. You clearly have no sprituality in you or you would never have made the ridiculous comments you have made. If you like violence so much, I know plenty of men who will should be in prision who will happily beat, rape and torture you. They love preying on enablers with no self esteem.

        WTF! You really are are nuts. You either are a woman with no self esteem or a man who is a predator, since I don't really know your gender. All I can see is reading your comments are like watching a 60s LSD high movie.

        • Posted By: DeeVee5 @ 08/10/2008 2:07:10 AM

          Part 3, in reply to free2008:

          I also admire the ideal of the heroic, dominant alpha male, a man who is truly proud of his masculinity and secure in his loving sexual dominance of his mate. I would like to think that such a man could find marital satisfaction and sexual bliss in a monogamous marriage with the right woman, provided that she adores and encourages his inner cave man to express the full depths of his libido. Sadly, too many men are trapped in sexless marriages, with a wife who is not truly excited by a man's body and his sex drive. Or else they're trapped in marriages where the Politically Correct ideologies of feminism and egalitarianism are regarded as sacred cows to be appeased even in the bedroom, so his innate male dominance is stifled, in the very place where it should be most honored and appreciated.

          However, some marriage advocates out there are finally beginning to raise their voices in defense of dominant men, and the women who adore and appreciate them, and the ideal of hot marital sex as the best and most natural glue for keeping a marriage intact. The best website in defense of faithful monogamous marriage based on romantic male dominance would have to be the Taken In Hand website, at www.takeninhand.com -- it's a blog with contributions from many different authors, very insightful. Another sweet and saucy website on romantic marriage is Leanne Bell's website "And They Lived Happily Ever After" at www.andtheylivedhappilyeverafter.com -- with topics like "the best sex of your life" and why that can only happen in marriage.

          So anyway, I'm not out to skewer marriage or monogamy or fidelity, or any of that. Only to point out that people are only human, and most people do worse things than having extramarital affairs, and that should not be a major concern when trying to figure out which politician would make the best choice for president.

        • Posted By: DeeVee5 @ 08/10/2008 2:02:27 AM

          More, to free2008:

          As for your comments on "rape fantasies" -- yes, many women do enjoy fantasies of being ravished (the correct term for rape, if she actually wants it). This can easily be seen from the popularity of romance novels as well as sex surveys; ravishment continues to be one of the favorite women's fantasies, even after all these decades of radical feminist brainwashing to the contrary. Some women even seek out husbands or boyfriends who have compatible interests, the better to find mutual marital fulfillment. That's why there are forums and websites for "ravishment" out there; enough said.

          However, I fail to see how that has anything to do with what I said about polygamy and adultery; which was only that consensual polygamy should be legal. I will again reiterate that I'm a romantic, personally; I find the ideal of monogamous lifelong marriage to be very sweet and appealing. I would love to find that for myself, some day. But I'm also a realist, who does not believe in crucifying other people just because their psychology or behavior does not happen to live up to my romantic ideals.

          Which is to say: I take the ideal of personal freedom at least as seriously as any other ideal. People who try to impose their own personal preferences on everyone else deserve a special place in hell -- if only I believed in hell. (As a pagan, of course, I don't.)

        • Posted By: DeeVee5 @ 08/10/2008 1:59:09 AM

          To Free2008

          My gender is all female, thanks. And I'm sure my friends will be shocked to hear that my self-esteem is too low, LOL.

          I agree that John Edwards is too skinny, but so is Barack Obama; even if they're both fairly handsome men. Like I said, I'd gladly vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger over either of them, since he's neither a left-wing extremist nor a right-wing extremist. He makes a lot of sense to me, but he's not allowed to run for president as the laws now stand.

          I disagree that John Edwards is "effeminate" and I can't imagine where anyone would get that idea. But the "effeminate" charge often gets tossed at male politicians who are considered handsome, because they're resented by other men who are much uglier. Personally, John Edwards is not pretty enough for my own tastes; I'm more likely to go for a man with a really beautiful face, like Johnny Depp; and preferably with a big, strong, husky masculine body. However, elections are not beauty contests, so it's not really relevant, is it?

          Your persistence in using the word "violence" in non-physical ways does not make too much sense to me. I suppose one could speak of "violent" art or music, such as hard rock. In that case again, it would be a good thing. But the current trendy societal fad is the "anti-violence" crusade, where "violence" can apparently mean just about anything you don't happen to like, and thus labeling it that way justifies victimizing yourself and other people, and trying to keep other people from doing things you personally dislike. (Bad hairstyles? OMG! It's "violence to hair"! Well, whatever.)

      • Posted By: jek47 @ 08/09/2008 11:08:28 PM

        The greatest of false statements is that Reagan helped bring about the collapse of the USSR and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Conservatives say it is because he forced them to spend so much on defense that their economy suffered. The real truth, that which any good historian could verify easily, is that the USSR was in the process of collapsing as soon as Leonid came to power.....many years before Reagan. Statements like these are repeated over and over in an effort to "make" history as opposed to learning it. It doesn't work. Eventually someone does the proper research and comes to the proper conclusions. Reagan could give a good speech, at least most of the time. He was warm and engaging and would make a great next door neighbor. But effective president he was not and his efforts in using the credit card of the White House to quadruple the deficit set a horrible precedent that the current president has exploited to the maximum.

  • Posted By: Cherubim @ 08/10/2008 12:45:42 AM

    The National Enquirer is owned by a big Clinton supporter.
    I think his name is Robert Altman.
    I suspect a "vast Clintonista conspiracy".

    • Posted By: sharenews @ 08/10/2008 1:59:24 AM

      ROBERT Altman is an American film director. The fellow you are referring to is ROGER Altman who is a prominent New York investment banker was an official in the first Clinton administration and supporter of Hillary. Not sure where you are coming from regarding conspiracy, but Roger is the guy you are referring to.

  • Posted By: xargaw @ 08/10/2008 1:42:13 AM

    There isn't a great deal of substance here, but Ms. Hunter comes off as fairly nutty. What is the world was Edwards thinking? Thank God he is not the nominee. I can't imagine a man taken by this women leading the country.

  • Posted By: Cherubim @ 08/10/2008 12:42:32 AM

    By the way, Ms. Hunter has released a statement saying she will not now or ever submit to having the paternity of her child determined. How convenient.

    So, now two without sin, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton will each on two separate nights speak at the Democratic convention. I suspect a vast "Clintonista Conspiracy".

    ,

  • Posted By: DeeVee5 @ 08/09/2008 11:56:56 PM

    (continuing...)

    Was there a some significant naivete and lack of foresight going on, with both Rielle Hunter and John Edwards? Sure. Does that make either of them evil people, who deserve to be pilloried and stoned for their lapses of judgement? Hell, no. It sounds like they're both idealists, and idealists can easily be swayed by emotions and moved by their ideals. Romance is like a drug, it makes us euphoric and optimistic about all things. They would hardly be the first couple in history to get swept up in a tide of emotion and carried away with themselves. If you ask me, the world has become a much too stodgy and stifling place. We need more free spirits, more emotional spontaneity, more people willing to take a risk and get carried away with their emotions and their ideals.

    In a perfect world, we could all be perfectly in tune with our emotions, and also have perfect intellectual discernment, foresight and judgement at all times. But we're not perfect, we're just human beings coping as best we can. Personally, I think most people do things that are much more immoral than adultery, on a daily basis. (Such as: eating meat. Animals don't consent to being tormented in factory farms, and their suffering is much worse than that of all the jilted wives in history. But I don't want to go way off on a tangent; that was just an example of one of a thousand important ethical issues that we could and should be more concerned with, than with John Edwards' marital intrigues.)

    • Posted By: Rose J. @ 08/10/2008 12:25:50 AM

      DeeVee5, you sound like a reincarnation of Rielle Hunter. Or, maybe you ARE "Rielle" aka Lisa Druck.

      • Posted By: DeeVee5 @ 08/10/2008 12:34:03 AM

        ^ Hahahah!! Nope. Nice try, though. I'm a devout Pagan, not a New Age person; and I don't think much of astrology. Also, I'm an independent, not a Democrat. I would have voted for Giuliani if he were still in the race; or Schwarzenegger, who could run for president if the unfair laws against immigrants were changed.

        But anyway, thanks for your charming curiosity about my private life. I never really understood all the public nosiness about celebrities and politicians; but I guess a lot of people can't think of anything better to do in life than worry about how other people live their lives. One more reason why "power to the sheeple" is not really such a great idea, nor has it ever been.

  • Posted By: DeeVee5 @ 08/09/2008 11:09:09 PM

    I have to wonder if people who are so eager to bash Rielle Hunter are driven by religious bigotry against New Age spirituality, or by a determination to impose their own narrow-minded Judeo-Christian ethics on everybody else in the world, or an insecurity about the institution of monogamous marriage, or what. Rielle comes across as a sweet and charming person in this article, even if she was rather more naive and trusting of people than she should have been. I can easily believe that she felt there was a special destiny awaiting John Edwards, and that it was her dream and her service to the greater good of the world to help him find that destiny. If she was in love with him, then that love probably fit into a larger spiritual context for her. Let's remember that Rielle was not the one who lied to Elizabeth Edwards, John was.

    I'm not saying that's right, because I do believe that honesty in marriage is of paramount importance. But people can and do get trapped in difficult marriages, where they can see no way out; especially someone in such a visible position as John Edwards. I don't believe he's a bad man at all. I believe he's a very good and idealistic man, even if I happen to disagree with some of his ideals. But even good people end up lying sometimes, when there is something at stake that they feel is more important.

    If someone is a politician with radical and visionary ideals, then they pretty much *have* to lie a lot, merely in order to get elected. Because the American public is not smart enough or idealistic enough or visionary enough to elect a truly great leader who is honest about his ideals. Those politicians who can afford to be honest about their ideals are the ones who don't do much original thinking of their own, but merely feed back to the vast ignorant public what it already thinks it knows and wants to hear. Truly great men with profound visionary ideals cannot be elected in a democracy of the lowest common denominator; unless they can somehow deceive the public into thinking that they're a lot more "normal" and "joe average" than they really are. I wish it were different; but democracy is a system that guarantees that great and brilliant people get outvoted by dull and average people.

    • Posted By: Rose J. @ 08/09/2008 11:23:43 PM

      You are delusional. Rielle's attempts to "free John" and 'make him into the next Ghandi' have resulted in an incredibly destructive and embarrassing incident.

      Rielle is not "sweet" person. Sweet, giving and kind people don't instigate and paricipate in affairs with married men who have CHILDREN and a wife who is terminally ill. What a disgraceful woman. I guess all of her trips to GURU camp didn't "free" her.

      Rielle Hunter aka Lisa Druck is a vicious, self serving individual.

      • Posted By: free2008 @ 08/10/2008 12:08:47 AM

        Of course she was trying to free him. By unzipping his pants and doing the horizontal with him, lol. Unbelievable reading DeeVee's comments. John and Hunter are victims and everyone they lied to, stole money from, used...those are the bad guys. Up is down and down is up.

  • Posted By: norash @ 08/10/2008 12:06:04 AM

    When I first saw John Edwards, in all his primped glory, and tried to reconcile his appearance with his crusade against poverty, I got a very sick feeling inside. I suspected his campaign was an attempt to absolve himself from guilt over his self-indulgent lifestyle.

    The day he held a news conference to announce his wife's cancer had returned, but he was going on with his campaign anyway, the glee on his primped face was entirely inappropriate. I felt so sorry for Elizabeth, and got that sick feeling again.

    Today, all I can say is, "Barf."

  • Posted By: Itzaboy @ 08/09/2008 11:56:16 PM

    Loser. Loser Candidate. Loser Videographer. Loser Parents. Loser Partners. Losers, all.

  • Posted By: DeeVee5 @ 08/09/2008 11:55:53 PM

    I'm not saying that this strange drama turned out well, by any means. Obviously, there was no small amount of destruction wrought here. (Including the child, assuming that she got pregnant by "accident.") But it's easy to have 20/20 hindsight; not so easy to have 20/20 foresight.

    Suppose things had been different: Suppose John Edwards had decided that he was unhappy in his marriage, and he sought and obtained a divorce from his wife; and then had married Rielle instead. (I'm not saying that he would or should have done that, or even that he would have wanted to. This is just a hypothetical scenario, to see how it might have looked from Miss Hunter's viewpoint.) That might have seemed tragic from Elizabeth's viewpoint; but nobody has the right to keep another person trapped in a miserable and unfulfilled marriage.

    In today's America, however, a divorce would create undue difficulties for Edwards as a politician, because divorce is still looked at askance by people who apparently feel that if they're doomed to suffer in tragic and miserable marriages, then everybody else should be likewise doomed. But we can imagine an America in which such a choice would be lauded and encouraged, instead of condemned. In that case, it would not have impeded his chances for the Democratic nomination at all. And even in America as it now stands, such a choice would be mostly forgiven and forgotten a few years later, by the next time the presidential elections roll around. There is very little penalty for politicians who divorced and remarried; less than for politicians who engaged in extramarital affairs while still married.

    Or suppose that John and Rielle had been in love, but neither of them wanted to upset Elizabeth unduly, given her unfortunate cancer condition. (This scenario is not too unlikely, but we really don't know.) If they had been able to wait patiently, without having their private lives exposed for the world to see; then maybe they could get married a few years later, after she passes away. In neither of those situations -- divorce and remarriage, or remarriage after widowhood -- would there have been all the mayhem and destruction as there has been. All the negative fallout is due mainly to the way that their private lives were invaded by the news media and the public; and also due to the anachronistic, knee-jerk ethics of the American public, which appears to be trapped in the days of the Old Testament. (to be continued)

  • Posted By: sharenews @ 08/09/2008 11:49:47 PM


    Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
    Saturday, August 09, 2008

    With Leaners:

    McCain - 47%

    Obama - 46%


    Without leaners

    TIED:

    McCain - 44%

    Obama - 44%

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that the race for the White House is tied - Barack Obama and John McCain each attract 44% of the vote. When leaners are included, it???s McCain 47% and Obama 46%. With leaners, the candidates have been within one point of each other for nine straight days

    Tracking Polls are released at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time each day.

  • Posted By: astro @ 08/09/2008 11:35:57 PM

    Yeah, of course we're bashing that stupid woman because of bigotry against New Age spirituality. and of course politicians with ideals "have to lie a lot". You are an idiot.

  • Posted By: teresa95051 @ 08/09/2008 11:29:37 PM

    So. I have a theory. I really do believe there is something much bigger going on in this story. Yes, yes, yes, many people behaving badly... but what is the worst behavior? I think the worst is a BIG cover-up, bigger than just an affair. And it has EVERYTHING to do with Edwards and his buddy Fred Baron. Rielle Hunter and Andrew Young, and Young's wife and children are living together, same house, in a multi-million dollar gated community in Santa Barbara, without any means of support other than money coming from Fred Baron. Supposedly, Baron also owns the home they are in. But is it a home? Or a prison? Fred Baron is one of the key fundraisers for the Democratic Party and a very good friend of Edwards. (Fred Baron, a trial lawyer, also with an $11 million estate in Texas made his fortune the same way that Edwards made his, in plaintiff litigation settlements. These two guys are in collusion, and I suspect the Democratic party already knows about it.

    Edwards is against tort reform (those high settlements that drive up our insurances, resulting in things like higher medical costs.) Baron and other influential democratic lawyers were hoping to get Edwards on that short list for VP... and if not as Obama's running mate, then as Attorney General if Obama won the presidency. These guys DO NOT want tort reform. If you read Frederick Baron's wikipedia entry, there is a chilling paragraph referring to a Wall Street Journal interview from 2002:
    "Baron has joked about the prominence he and other trial lawyers have in the Democratic Party. In a July 2002 speech, he noted a Wall Street Journal editorial that said that "the plaintiffs bar is all but running the Senate." Baron pointed to the editorial and said, "Now I really, strongly disagree with that. Particularly the 'all but.'"

    To me THAT's chilling.
    Edwards screwed up (literally)... and now the trial lawyers "running the Senate" are protecting their ass-ets. They are willing to cover up this debacle in any manner they can. Rielle Hunter is not an innocent... ok....but I think she is not as corrupt as the people playing her.

    We really, really need MSM to do their job, investigate.

  • Posted By: the53rdcalypso @ 08/09/2008 11:01:47 PM

    He???s probably just scared to admit the truth. But I mean it isn???t as if he couldn???t put it tactfully and poetically: http://www.236.com/news/2008/08/08/john_edwards_throws_lovechild_8208.php There. Now was that so hard?

  • Posted By: star3 @ 08/09/2008 10:58:12 PM

    Well spoken, Rose! Completely agree.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse