The John Edwards love-baby story: What took so long?

Who knew that the biggest story to break at the television critics' tour would happen while we were all in our rooms getting some shut-eye?

In the wee hours of Tuesday, July 22, John Edwards — the former senator from North Carolina, former presidential candidate and running mate in 2004 — was confronted by reporters for the National Enquirer at a men's room of the Beverly Hilton, the very hotel where TCA summer press tour had concluded a few hours earlier. They believed he was there to pay a visit to the child he had fathered out of wedlock and the baby's mother, an ex-campaign staffer named Rielle Hunter.

On Wednesday, the story finally started to trickle out into the mainstream, beginning with Wikipedia and followed today by a news story in our sister paper, the News & Observer. Given the Enquirer's stellar track record in reporting such things, why was the media so slow?

If I were you, I'd dispense with the idea that a liberal conspiracy of silence kept this story under wraps. It wasn't under wraps. In December 2007, Drudge Report passed along this National Enquirer story confirming that Hunter was, indeed, pregnant and living in a gated community near a close Edwards confidant (who had argued, in a lovely parallel to the Anna Nicole story, that the baby was actually his).

Edwards was still running for president last December. Why didn't his opponents jump on this? Why didn't the story get any traction? One likely reality is that vigorous denials from campaign staffers, veiled threats to put reporters off the bus if they persisted, and the absence of any follow-up reporting from the Enquirer or any other source combined to take the air out of the story.

That doesn't explain why it took 10 days for the Enquirer ambush — which was almost immediately confirmed by a security guard — to make it out of the tabloidosphere. Paul Harris and listeners were talking it up on WLS Radio in Chicago last week. Yet the story just sat there. And even though bloggers love to talk about the MSM's irrelevance, smart ones like Mickey Kaus recognized that mainstream coverage was indispensable to getting Edwards, and the Democratic left, to finally treat his open wound.

Parked in front of the Beverly Hilton, 7/19/2008. That was "Stylista" and "90210" day at TV critics' tour. (Photo by me)

You can argue that Edwards is a private citizen, and that merited extra caution. I don't buy it. Even if Howard Fineman is right and Edwards isn't on Obama's short list for vice president, until the running mate is actually named, it's ridiculous to treat him as though he's returned to Mount Vernon like Cincinnatus.

So that leaves the Elizabeth factor. Regardless of what one thinks of John Edwards or his politics, the popularity of and public affection for Elizabeth Edwards is undeniably high. She was an effective campaigner because she was seen as the honest broker her husband, the candidate, couldn't always be.

Elizabeth Edwards is the real reason this story hasn't gained traction until now. I think that out of respect for EE, and a desire not to compound her grim cancer scenario with further emotional pain probably caused editors to hold back reporting the story until something else came along.

Two things happened Wednesday that seem to have pushed this over the edge. First, after more than a week of acrimonious debate, Wikipedia editors gave in and began including references to the alleged affair in its John Edwards entry. As Wired's reporter aptly put it: "Some users wondered why ... The New York Times' John McCain lobbyist affair (story) could be relied upon, but not a tabloid like The National Enquirer."

Then on Wednesday, John Edwards bolted from reporters after a public appearance. In a weird parallel to his Beverly Hilton encounter, he ducked out of a hotel kitchen area on Wednesday in the hopes of avoiding the press. Not a good way to erase suspicion.

Perhaps that's why our McClatchy Washington bureau has put the Edwards story on the wire.

I doubt that anything was lost in the 10 days since the late-night encounter at the hotel — other than a chance for me to score an exclusive camera-phone shot of the room where the senator allegedly visited his love baby — but I am not sold at all on the idea that liberal squeamishness was the reason the press held back on this story. (If anything, the ineptitude with which the Times fast-tracked its allegations against McCain should be a cautious lesson about rushing a story to press.)

And let me say this as someone married to a breast cancer survivor. If I were in John Edwards' position, and I could pull myself away from the nearest mirror (that hair is to die for), I would play the Elizabeth card as aggressively as I could. I would have my advisers tell the press, on the QT, to keep quiet about the story because it's a painful time for the family as it is. That's an unpleasant truth (not that I'd ever cheat on my wife), but as long as it kept alive the possibility that this story might go away again, I'd do it. I wouldn't be proud to do it, but I'd do it.

Then again, it sounds like John Edwards doesn't have much to be proud of lately.

Comments

[hadenuf]

I say this as an Edwards supporter and neighbor--some of us are as pained by this story as his family must be.

However, he needs to set the story straight, whatever it is. The pain will just continue until he does.

Unfortunately, this IS news, particularly if campaign funds [>$114,000] were used to pay a woman with whom he was having an affair.

[Aaron]

I think if you were a friend and supporter of John and Elizabeth (a) you wouldn't claim to be "as pained" as the family -- no one with a heart would ever say that about an affair -- and (b) you wouldn't have a handle "hadenuf."

Anyway, thanks to the reader who noticed I mixed up North and South Carolina -- I had the S.C. primaries on the brain.

[alicia]

I've got to come to the defense of the "hadenuf" post. To me it read sincerely. I didn't pick up any hidden agenda.

Just as you, Mr. Barnhart, did not use the term "playing the Elizabeth card" cynically, but instead, mercifully, so too, at least in my opinion, "hadenuf's" words had the subtext of compassion.

[jeanruss]

I am also an Edwards supporter and I could care less if this is true. Americans are the true hypocrites. We pretend that we are moral, but think it's ok to invade a country to steal their natural resources and murder and displace millions of people. So please spare me the fake outrage. Every American should look to their own behavior and leave others alone.

[Marilyn]

To bad this has had to be smeared all over the blogosphere. It serves no purpose other than the right wing's obsession with sex. This should have been a private matter for the Edwards family since Edwards isn't running for public office. The MSM/right wing media has hyped Edwards as a possible Obama VP candidate. Our country has serious problems(mortgage crisis, soaring food & gas prices, loss of jobs, etc.) but the right wing media cares more about an alleged affair of a former presidential candidate indiscretion. Shows our country has fallen into "sheep mentality" of the media.

[William A. Hall]

Aaron,

Stumbling across your website and article was the closest web equivalent to turning over a rock and seeing what crawls out that I have experienced - truly disgusting. Of course, it was a path that began with an Ann Coulter word salad on "Human Events" - she's still not taking her Thorazine - a quick side step into that steaming pile of crap passing itself off as journalism called the National Enquirer, and then, your blog.

What makes you think that the allegation is even something worth polluting the internet with? Why would you think that it deserves repeating? Do you think that this will help Elizabeth Edwards? How do you look at yourself in the mirror and not throw up in disgust?

You may quote me - but only if you quote my entire statement.

[copied from email]

[Ginn]

Aaron,

I wonder why people are so quick to shoot the messenger? Well, not actually the messenger, per se, but the messenger reported that the message had been out for some time.

As for those who think reporting this story is salacious and doesn't "bear repeating", this is your opinion.

In my opinion, Edwards was still vying for a possible VP position. He is also under consideration for a possible Attorney General spot. He cheated on his wife while still running for President.

This has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with a man whose platform when running for President included "morality" and "unwed mothers".

Who denied he had an affair and then attempted to cover it up. Who hid in a bathroom after running from reporters.

If he can't handle National Enquirer reporters then how would he handle an national crisis?

[Robert Underwood]

The Enquirer should put up or shut up. Even FAUX News isn't jumping on the rant-wing bandwagon.

[Clinton W. Spence]

Aaron, Senator Edwards ducked from the McClatchy press reporters for the same reasons that you or I would as well. Who wants to answer questions, legitimate or not, about a story in The National Enquirer? All that you have done is to spread a gossip that the New Testament includes in a list of sins, which include adultery, sodomy, murder, and backbiting. So, Aaron, you are as guilty of sin as Senator Edwards, IF the reports are true! Regardless, you are not a reporter but a gossip.

[Alison]

It doesn't look good for John Edwards. The private lives of public figures are always fair game. And he has repeatedly denied it. This has made the Enquirer mad and you just know they are not going to give it up til he admits it.

[inmypajamas]

This Presidential candidate declared undying devotion to his cancer-stricken wife while playing hide the sausage with a campaign aide and fathering a child to boot. The man is a cowardly, selfish cad. If I were once an Edwards fan, I sure wouldn't be fighting to be at the front of the line now.

I seriously doubt the MSM is protecting Elizabeth Edwards. Laura Bush certainly enjoys popularity and public affection similar to Elizabeth's and the MSM would have absolutely *no* hesitation in trashing Bush were it revealed that he was fooling around or started drinking again. They would crush each other in their mad rush to report a Romney or Thompson peccadillo. You attribute far too much humanity to the MSM.

[Tony]

So, this is what it's come to, huh? The National Enquirer and The New York Times are being given equal credibility. I'll tell you the real reason the Edwards story hasn't gained any traction... because for reasonable, thinking people, tabloids are still tabloids. You might as well ask why the Bush divorce story, which has been percolating at the supermarket checkout aisle for years, hasn't gained any traction!

If you're going to introduce us to Edwards' love child, I hope you'll follow it up with Bat Boy.

[Bob]

The press has proved its incompetence once again. Not only did it swallow the Bush lie on Irag hook, line and sinker, it covered up a scandal, that if not uncovered and Edwards was picked as Obama'a running mate, the news would have come out and assured the Democrat's defeat in November.
I was actually an Edwards supporter, until his stupid, incredulous decision to get a $400 haircut while campaigning for the presidential nomination. What a pompous, self-righteous ass! This is about as bad as Newt's serving his wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital recuperating from cancer surgery.

[Wemedge]

I have a lot of sympathy for women who, in addition to being betrayed by their philandering politician husbands, must suffer through the public humiliation of it all. And Elizabeth's illness makes the situation even more tragic.

That being said, there is something really unseemly about the media helping to cover up something so clearly newsworthy. The public has a right to know whether, while campaigning to be president, a candidate engaged in an extra-marital affair. The public also has a right to know whether that candidate prevailed upon a married campaign staffer (and, necessarily, his family) to assist with the cover-up by taking public responsibility for the child.

It isn’t a pretty story, but the media has an obligation to report it.

[Jill]

No one is comparing the New York Times and The Enquirer, because that would be stupid. The New York Times isn't as reliable nowadays as the NE, so you're right, it's silly to compare.

And to everyone out there saying Edwards is a private citizen and this is none of our business, let me remind you....if Edwards had won the nomination, this would still be happening. Got it? He would be the democrat nominee and this would have come out and he would have no doubt had to resign.

This is extremely relevant. As someone else said, if Romney (a guy in the exact position as Edwards) were caught doing this it would be national headlines for days. And with Edwards it's worse because his wife is sick, AND he is always telling the rest of us whats right and what is wrong. Not to mention that just last summer he and Elizabeth renewed their vows for their 30th anniversary. Still think it's not a story??!!

Just face it, you like Edwards, you hate the GOP and you hate giving them any ammo. Giving any excuses for the media blackout just makes you look ridiculous. Period. End of story.

[daves]

John Edwards is a slick NC trial attorney with many character flaws. He is unfit for any public service. I know. I am a NC ob/gyn.

[Jason]

I could care less about the private lives and private parts of our politicians. It's none of our business. Like Jeanruss said, I think it's hypocritical of the public to behave like they're the moral ones who are allowed to be outraged by this, when these sorts of things happen in real life, and if it were to happen to you or me, we would deserve to have the dignity of our own privacy.

Adulterers exist, and they can also be very good at their chosen professions. Get over it already. It's only sexual repression that is making the public and the media salivate over this story. Left or right, it makes no difference to me: we ought to stay out of each other's private lives.

[Cheryl Spencer from Lewes, Delaware]

If Fox News does not now report on the adulterous affairs of Pat and Gordon Robertson, THEY will be the hypocrites. Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity have known for a long time about the sins and crimes of those two republicans, a father/son holyman outfit who use prayer and healing as a money-making tool and who use their tax-exempt status for political organizing, but have yet to report on it even though they say they are fair and balanced. Pat and Gordon Robertson are adulterers AND frauds. Adultery is not a crime but fraud is.

[Skippy]

Nice man. Pimping his cancerous wife to riase money, and you brain dead(s) turn this into an Iraq story? Bush's divorce?

[Susan]

During the campaign I watched a story about cancer survivors which btw I am also. The group included Elizabeth that IMO was an excellent addition to the program. She said something during that program that really bothered me a lot. She made the comment that she wished that John had agreed to come on the program to give his first hand feelings about living with somebody that would be dying of cancer. She looked pained and it was only a passing comment, but it struck me that something was wrong inside that house. Why would he not come on the show to support her?Elizabeth appears to be a "stand by your man" gal. Maybe for her since her time is limited that she can only put out so many fires and instead chooses to stay focused on her children. John Edwards is a CREEP. As a cancer survivor myself, knowing what it is like to see no future, it has got to be a sad state of affairs to know the man you will die caring about has another family and is in fact a weak, spineless human being. His karma is badly damaged.

[Mark Anderson]

John Edwards is a private citizen...He is also worth millions of dollars, so I doubt he used campaign funds on this matter.

A politician who does bad things? Shocking, I know. Otherwise, I don't see how this is a news story. (Assuming Obama doesn't pick him to be VP, which seems a certainty anyway)

[alicia]

To me it is indisputable that this story should be covered by the media. It is not something that happened years ago. It is happening in real time. It began while Edwards was out on the campaign trail. And he is still a public figure whose name is being bandied about for a cabinet post. So scrutiny of him is fair.

I think the so-called American "puritanical streak" is actually one of the strengths of our national character. There is, JMO, such a thing as "too sophisticated." For example, the French pride themselves on their anything-goes values.

But it was the Americans who had to save them during WWII. They have freedom thanks to our country. Freedom to have dinner parties where they chat about how superior they are to us.
Dream on, France. And I happen to adore their country.

When this story about Edwards first broke, I completely dismissed it as trash and untrue. But as it has played out, everything about Edward's behavior seems to confirm its validity. Sadly so.

If it weren't true, he would have denied it in a more formal and forceful fashion. He would have framed it in such a way to reinforce his protectiveness of his wife and family.

But Edwards has not done this. His denial was a rote denial.

And then the way his close friend has stepped in to claim paternity only highlights what seems to evidently be a con.

What is interesting to me is how Edwards got pulled into this in the first place.

He does not come across as a player. That you-tube video of him obsessing about his hair was funny but I'm wondering if it maybe was an indication of a certain insecurity and lack of confidence.

But then that doesn't make sense because he is exceptionally good looking and has a history of being accomplished and successful.

But something made him vulnerable. I'm trying to understand how he got involved with this woman.

Just speculation, of course, but I think that it is more likely that she was the agressor. That she targeted and seduced him.

While filming him she may have become aware of his vulnerabilites and how, with flattery, she could prey upon him.

I know this is kind of off-the-wall and a bit melodramatic but I think it is not outside the realm of possibility that she even plyed him with alcohol on some fateful night to help break down his resistance and judgment.

How long is this affair purported to have gone on anyway? Perhaps it was less an affair than an encounter.

I think Edwards may be a good guy who just got caught up in a situation with a woman who saw a way to get herself a lifetime of financial security and went ahead and orchestrated it.

I think Edwards may have gotten played big-time.
Not a good quality for someone who could have been president.

One of the sad things about all of this is that this Hunter woman has now become not only a permanent part of his life but also of the life of Edward's wife, Elizabeth Edwards, and of the life of their children. Including two young children.

Um kids, let me introduce your new sister...

[Michele]

This is kept quiet because he is a democrat. Plain and simple. But anyone who says they don't care about someone's personal life but supports them as a politician, better think again. How they act in their personal life is how they'll be as a politician.

[DJS]

The National Enquirer. No photos. The security guard story is laughable.

That's why the traditional media won't touch it.

[Tom in California]

Grow up, everybody! This story is just trash!