John Edwards to Move Rielle and Baby to N.C. and Help Raise Her

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 07:40:00 AM EST
Tags: John Edwards, Rielle Hunter (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Adding insult to injury to his cancer-stricken wife Elizabeth, Gawker is reporting that John Edwards has decided to move Ms. Rielle Hunter and their baby to the Edwards' North Carolina neighborhood so he can help raise her. Gawker reports:

Elizabeth Edwards told The Enquirer that she flipped out when she found out about Hunter's move to their neighborhood.She's always figured the child may be John's, but the positive DNA result really floored her. And as if that wasn't bad enough, John told Elizabeth he needed to be in his daughter's life - and that Rielle was moving to North Carolina.

"He told Elizabeth he was tired of all the lies, and that's why he was ready to publicly admit Frances is his baby. "That's when Elizabeth exploded! In a fit of rage, she grabbed a suitcase and started packing her things . . ."

[More...]

And as only Gawker could write:

Seriously, what more could John Edwards possibly do to make his wife's life any more miserable? Maybe instead of using the toilet he can just start defecating all over the family home whenever the urge strikes him?

Elizabeth was on Larry King Live last night and said things are fine at home, but added that when the DNA tests are revealed, ""I hope that for the sake of this child, that it happens in a quiet way."

< Late Night: No Surrender | WSJ Reports Dem May Split Health Care Bill >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

John Edwards to Move Rielle and Baby to N.C. and Help Raise Her | 63 comments (63 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Yes, Edwards should be ashamed, but.... (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by Key on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 01:54:01 AM EST

What does this have to do with, well, anything? I mean, at some point these sort of personal matters (even for public people) ought to be left alone.

Think back to the 2008 campaign and your position on not allowing discussion about certain issues related to family members of a certain vice presidential candidate.....

This Edwards story is sad, and I feel for everyone involved. Can't we just let them all have some peace and privacy, no?

Agreed except he was running for Pres (5.00 / 4) (#3)
by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 02:21:47 AM EST

during the time and knew the Enquirer had busted him and Elizabeth knew and they didn't pull out in Iowa. Many believe that had Edwards dropped out in Iowa, the remaining prmary race would have unfolded much differently. That too, is water under the bridge at his point, but in that respect, if true, his actions could have influenced the outcome of a Presidential election.


I saw a clip of Elizabeth on CNN this a.m. (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 08:01:15 AM EST

she was discussing healthcare with Tommy Thompson, and she did such a class job. She's always had such a resounding voice of sanity when it came to healthcare. I can't imagine how she's managing to take the issue on, be as ill as she is, and having a husband doing this. If it were me I wouldn't want to traumatize my family on the eve of losing me with parents living in different homes, talk of divorce...I would consider it too much grieving for my kids and I'd find a way to slog through it. It's horrible though


: Stress (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by mmc9431 on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 09:00:38 AM EST

I'm not sure about that. A peaceful, loving home without the tension and stress may be a lot better for both her and her child than living on egg shells.

Yes, his actions did change (5.00 / 8) (#21)
by Cream City on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 08:52:35 AM EST

the campaign, not only in Iowa but later in his endorsement of Obama as -- do we remember this? -- the one to bring universal health care to this country.


yup (5.00 / 3) (#41)
by TeresaInPa on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 01:36:25 PM EST

Edwards is a compete tool in every way and I do not have much sympathy for Elizabeth either. she knew and continued to say things about her life being better than Hillary's because of the choices she mad and how Hillary had to act like a man to get where she was.

Long ago when I first heard of the guy when he got to the senate, I thought he seemed like a sleaze. What kind of person thinks he is so damned special he need to run for president immediately upon entering the senate or congress. What kind of supporters think a man will win because women think he is so cute? What kind of man portrays himself as a moderate war hawk one year and four years later, the peace candidate?
I also said once that he was probably cheating on Elizabeth and I got raked through the coals for suggesting that he would do that.


For a minute there, I thought the (5.00 / 4) (#46)
by Anne on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 02:20:42 PM EST

punch line to this part of your comment:

What kind of person thinks he is so damned special he need to run for president immediately upon entering the senate or congress. What kind of supporters think a man will win because women think he is so cute? What kind of man portrays himself as a moderate war hawk one year and four years later, the peace candidate?

was "Barack Obama" - well, except for the "moderate war hawk" part. :-)

Obviously, the real answer is that one has to have an ego that cannot be safely contained or satisfied in ways that the rest of us manage to do it.

Elizabeth's swipes at Hillary made me angry, too, because they were so unnecessary and so unkind - and so tempting to the fates that have a way of making one regret thinking one is so superior to someone else.


: Yes. Obama was my first (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by oldpro on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 07:36:04 PM EST

thought, too.
I forget who had that great line about Obama coming to Washington and stopping by the senate to get directions to the White House.

Criminy (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by shoephone on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 02:29:51 AM EST

The man is a narcissist.

As if Elizabeth doesn't have enough to deal with, just trying to stay alive. The stress of this would be enough to kill ya.

Poor Judgement (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by mmc9431 on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 05:10:54 AM EST

I agree that under normal circumstances I wouldn't care what went on in their lives. But the campaign makes a major difference, Knowing all of this, Edwards chose to take millions of dollars from people to continue a campaign that he knew was a farce. He also divided the electorate at a time when it made a major difference.

I would suggest Elizabeth file for divorce, get as large a cash settlement as possible and put in in a trust for her kids. They need some insurance for their future. They could find themselves pushed out the door at some point. She would be foolish to trust Edwards on their future. He hasn't shown good judgement to date.

: the edwards story (none / 0) (#29)
by sancho on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 10:55:11 AM EST

may just clarify how difficult it is to distinguish any candidate's self-interest from the (non-business) interests of the many s/he claims to represent.

Elizabeth is still (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by weltec2 on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 05:41:04 AM EST

working for reform. She is still alive and making her voice heard.

Her husband makes me sick at heart.

Wow (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by Steve M on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 06:52:38 AM EST

All together now, class: Keep it in your pants!

Or have surgery. (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by Fabian on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 08:53:07 AM EST

Ruin your own life, but leave children out of it!


Or... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by kdog on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 02:08:07 PM EST

just don't get married or enter a monogamous relationship...aka be honest with yourself and the people you supposedly love.

There should be no shame in wanting to make love with more than one person...only shame in betrayal.


News Bulletin, just in: (5.00 / 2) (#47)
by shoephone on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 02:27:26 PM EST

Most pepople don't get married with the intention of cheating on their spouses.

Film at 11.


: I don't know about most... (none / 0) (#49)
by kdog on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 02:33:10 PM EST

some do, some don't...which is in the majority is up for debate...damned if I know.
But I think we'd be amazed at the number who take the vows and know in their heart they have no plan on keeping them...and not just the fidelity part either.

She should have started packing (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by nycstray on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 07:24:45 AM EST

HIS things.

One of my relatives (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Fabian on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 09:24:15 AM EST

(in law relation) has a story about their great grandfather who had two families and two farms! He'd head out for few days every couple of weeks, back in the days of horse and wagon and no telephones.

When his first wife found out about the second family, she kicked her husband out and kept the farm. The families maintained ties over the generation, although the ex-wife's family changed the spelling of their surname.

Well, I suppose there are uglier and (5.00 / 4) (#26)
by Anne on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 09:40:31 AM EST

nastier ways to do this - like having a full-blown, knock-down, drag-out custody battle to just take the child away from Hunter altogether, complete with non-stop media coverage of all the details, so the decision to re-locate Hunter and her child to North Carolina seems rather Solomon-like by comparison. As angry as Elizabeth must be that she has to keep being confronted with the proof of her husband's betrayal, she also has to know that it will do her own children no good in the future to demonize either Hunter or John - or the child that is presumably a half-sibling to Elizabeth's children.

Who knows what's going on behind closed doors, but the ones I feel the worst for are the children who, regardless of how good a front Elizabeth and John think they are putting up for them, have to be feeling the tension and anger; kids always know when something's wrong.

Terrible situation all the way around.

: Had John never entered politics, (none / 0) (#36)
by Inspector Gadget on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 12:33:42 PM EST

but simply stayed in Chapel Hill practicing law, and had an affair with a co-worker or acquaintance, she and the baby would already be nearby.

Personally (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 10:18:13 AM EST

I think that this scenario is the WORST THING for John and Eliz's children. Rielle's baby has no idea what's going on, and should be just fine in another city...but if John "helps take care of" this other child, it can be nothing but traumatic for the other kids.

If John thinks he wants a part of this child's life, he's really sacrificing the rights and needs of his other children for it. I think Eliz should take her children and go elsewhere, so they aren't exposed to this trauma.

Big Love (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by ruffian on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 10:30:10 AM EST

Maybe he can move them right next door and date the nanny next.

My nother would have loved (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Gerald USN Ret on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 10:56:03 AM EST

all these reality dating shows, and she would have been outraged at John Edwards, though completely entranced as well.

What eats at me though is John "Boy" dropping these lovely children all over the country, and one of my nephews, my younger sister's son, and his wife have tried for years to have a child, and are now trying to adopt and dying a little bit more every time the Chinese change their rules. The girl is going into serious depression.

As much as (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by Bemused on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 11:17:21 AM EST

I might want to agree with the view that Edwards' career is over so there is no good reason to continue to publicize this, that isn't realistic.

Rich and famous man, former Sennator and presidential candidate involved in seamy sex scandal isn't going to be ignored. Add the cancer-stricken wife, flaky mistress and a baby and there is huge audience wanting all the dirt.

Edwards at this point has no good options-- as he shouldn't. It's a little bit harder to buy his position of wanting to do the right thing and "be a good father" after he has lied not only lied and denied being any kind of father and tried to make another guy take responsibility, but hey, better late than never, n'est-ce pas?

As for moving the baby and mon close to his home. there are two ways of looking at that. He's rich enough that he could take a private jet across the country as often as he wants to see the baby. On the other hand, he might be less inclined to do something stupid, or be suspected of it, again if the baby is just a few miles away and it is easy to arrange a go-between to bring the baby to him sana mom.

I could see mom being adamantly opposed to having the baby fly across the country to see the father unless she was with the baby the whole trip, but not objecting a to a mutually trusted person pick up the baby at her house and drive a few minutes to his. I can also see where Edwards wouldn't have a leg to stand on fighting her about that.

So, if confroted with being seen as a scummy jackass absent from his child's life; a scummty jackass whose scummy behavior now has him frequently leaving his sick wife to travel across the country to see his love child (and who knows what else); or a scummy jackass who at least has the decency to be a real father to his child without leaving his wife alone and ill, the latter choice might be the best available.

Given the options (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by CoralGables on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 11:28:57 AM EST

It looks like you are right. No one should ever put down a parent for wanting to take part in raising their child, regardless of the scummy extenuating circumstances.


That said (5.00 / 3) (#37)
by Steve M on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 12:42:20 PM EST

this is a heck of a time to decide to care about being a responsible father.


Agreed but (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by CoralGables on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 02:12:46 PM EST

Having known someone that paid child support for 12 years and then decided to have DNA testing only to find out he wasn't the father, waiting for the DNA results is understandable.


Heh (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by Steve M on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 03:02:23 PM EST

I am suggesting the time for him to have become responsible was back before he decided to cheat on the mother of his other children.


: No argument there (none / 0) (#53)
by CoralGables on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 03:20:41 PM EST

please watch your language (none / 0) (#39)
by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 01:21:22 PM EST

jacka*ss is not allowed.


: I thought j****** (none / 0) (#40)
by Bemused on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 01:35:16 PM EST

was pretty mild considering, but is horse's behind OK?

your great grandmothers rival (5.00 / 3) (#42)
by TeresaInPa on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 01:39:27 PM EST

was dead. there is a big difference. Why are women expected to be martyrs?

Word o'mercy! (none / 0) (#2)
by Gerald USN Ret on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 02:03:57 AM EST

That's what my blessed mother would say if she were still alive.

I can't understand why Elizabeth didn't move out some time ago.

OT - Jeralyn, did you ever see and answer my question about what you thought of the reports that
Ed Swiderski cheated on Jillian with 2 women?
Supposedly US Weekly has pictures.

Didn't see your question (none / 0) (#5)
by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 02:29:51 AM EST

but I've written about it on popleft.com. Today I spoke with Jesse, who was chosen by Deanna and then dumped. He and Jillian are friends and he spoke with her today before speaking with me. Jillian and Ed are happy, they are at her parents' home in Canada right now, and she is not reading the internet about these stories and intending to stay out of the LA media glare. Obviously, she knew about the girls and does not believe anything happened between them and Ed after they got engaged in Hawaii on May 24. I hope for the best for Jillian. I never cared for Ed and liked Reid much better, but it's her choice.

Jesse, by the way, will be hosting some of the Olymics coverage in Vancouver. And the Bachelor/Bachelorette producers are thinking about doing a show with a new format with a bunch of the girls and boys from several past seasons living together in a house. They've asked Jesse to be in it but nothing's final. It sounds like it would be a cross between Bachelorette and Big Brother.

And Natalie from Jason's season is now dating Mike the baseball player from Jillian's season, and Holly, who dated Jesse after his and Deanna's break-up, is now in love with cutie Michael Stagliano (the breakdancer) during Jillian's season. That one I hear from several sources is serious. (This is like being back in junior high and watching American Bandstand.)


LOL. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by shoephone on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 02:32:13 AM EST

It sounds like an episode of "As the World Turns"!


They are all great kids (none / 0) (#7)
by Jeralyn on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 02:34:58 AM EST

and I love how they stay friends after the shows are over. For more on Jesse, his website is here. The other one I email with from time to time is Wes, the country singer, who got the bad edit. He's actually a really nice guy who didn't have a girlfriend when he went on the show. They edited him to be the devil. Looks like the next Bachelor will be Kip, Reid or Jake. I'm hoping for Reid, but I it doesn't look like he wants to do it.


: A few months ago (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by shoephone on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 02:55:52 AM EST

when I was meeting regularly with a computor tutor, we used to go to this one coffee house in Kirkland, WA. One time, there was a guy sitting at the corner table, fiddling with his blackberry and nervously looking around the room, and for some reason the first thought that popped into my head was, "Who's the schmoe at the corner table?" When we left I passed by him and saw him not too discretely give me the once-over. Then it dawned on me: "Oh", I said. "It's that Jason guy from the Bachelor!" Cracked me up. My tutor said, "Wait, who's a bachelor?...wha?"

Some people indulge in outrage ... (none / 0) (#8)
by cymro on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 02:38:59 AM EST

... because it allows them to avoid actually thinking about practical solutions to life's complications. This situation appears to be a good example. What is Edwards supposed to do, given his situation?

I know he has another child (5.00 / 3) (#18)
by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 08:10:18 AM EST

There are ways to be in her life though that would not do this much damage to his first family. I don't know how long Elizabeth has on earth, but the children that they share together are also watching and experiencing this and I doubt it is pleasant for them. This is a situation that requires finesse from all the adults in play and I thought he had a lot more of it than it appears that he has. What I think is really happening is that John Edwards was never very confident without Elizabeth. Now that he is losing her he is scrambling to find himself. He can be in Frances' life though in ways at this very moment that don't do this much damage to others he is obligated to. Heck, he can even build a new life with Reilly if he wants one after losing Elizabeth. I can't imagine that is about love though and is more about desperation because he apparently wouldn't be able to be without someone holding his hand longer than five minutes if that is how this goes. It looks potentially like even Joe Biden outmans Edwards.


Oops, just noticed I didn't know how to spell (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 08:14:16 AM EST

Rielle. No offense Rielle. Your spelling is unique. If you tell John though that you aren't going to N.C. right now, that that is not the best thing for any of kids at the moment. I'll probably remember how to spell your name forever.


Pure speculation (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by Fabian on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 09:01:08 AM EST

but I agree! ;-)

It's hardly the move of a man who treasures his wife and their children above all things. It's more the move of a man who wants to have his cake and eat it too.


My spouse won't talk Afghanistan with me (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:14:10 PM EST

but I told him about what was going on because it seemed to me that Edwards has his next hookup waiting in the wings. Spouse said that that's how he would do it :) He'd better be real careful. I'm not nice like Elizabeth :)


Shouldn't Elizabeth Edwards be (none / 0) (#57)
by oculus on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 06:05:30 PM EST

grateful the mom and child aren't moving into the Edwards estate?


Are you negotiating? (none / 0) (#61)
by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 09:08:03 PM EST

: Ha. My friend just finished mediation (none / 0) (#63)
by oculus on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 09:13:07 PM EST

course and we were discussing various techniques and the effectiveness of each. She mentioned one of the "war stories" was about a public entity that agreed, as part of a negotiated settlement, to permit erection of a memorial by the side of the bike trail where a serious accident occurred. I sd.--now there are probably a hundred such memorials throughout the area. Open the flood gates. Got to be hard hearted.

Edwards (5.00 / 3) (#20)
by jbindc on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 08:14:29 AM EST

doesn't have to move his former mistress and thier child to the same neighborhood where he lives with his wife and other children. Imagine being Elizabeth and taking a walk around the block and seeing your husband's former mistress out playing with the baby in the front yard of a house he allegedly set her up in (with your money). Or imagine what the neighbors will talk about amongst themselves, but avoid when they talk to Elizabeth (but will always be looking around if they are in the yard - wathcing to see if "she" walks or drives by).

I think it's good he's taking responsibility, but he has other children to consider as well,


Actually, if they aren't on a (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Inspector Gadget on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 12:30:53 PM EST

national stage, most children of affairs do live in the same area as the father, his wife and family. Eliz is a reasonable adult who will most likely adjust since there's nothing she can do to change it. It's what they make of it that matters.

Children don't understand being taken away from a parent, and they don't understand having to resent a baby.


Emma Claire is 11 yrs old, I believe (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by shoephone on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 01:59:10 PM EST

She probably understands a lot more than her father realizes. He's in for interesting times if he thinks the kids will merely accept Daddy's "situation" and move on with it. I've seen this kind of thing dozens of times. It NEVER goes down easy, especially for the kids.


Every time I think about those kids (5.00 / 3) (#54)
by Anne on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 03:44:22 PM EST

trying to come to terms with why Dad betrayed Mom while Mom was terminally ill, and how, as they get older, there will be more and deeper aspects to the whole thing that they will struggle with, it almost makes my head explode. And the oldest, Cate, is already an adult, so I can only imagine how she is dealing with the impending loss of her mother - after already losing her brother - the betrayal of her father and having a half-sister to boot. It's just too much.

It's bad enough that ordinary people do stupid things that put their families through hell, but when the consequences of their stupidity - and overbearing ego - are played out in the glare of the media, it just has to be exponentially worse.


: Now, Anne, don't you accept (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by oculus on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 06:08:12 PM EST

John Edwards' explanation he just needs to make everything public? What a cruel idiot.

Never say never (none / 0) (#48)
by Inspector Gadget on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 02:29:16 PM EST

My step kids were 11 and 9 when they got their first half-sibling. Their mother hated it, but the kids loved having a baby sister, the next one to arrive was just as welcome. All four kids are adults now and are very close to each other. I've seen this scenario many times over.


: Ah, well, now I understand (none / 0) (#50)
by shoephone on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 02:33:21 PM EST

the perspective from which you speak.
I stand by my original comment.

These children are on a national stage (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:16:28 PM EST

that their father put them on. He's being an extremely negligent parent in my opinion. It seems that Elizabeth thinks so too and even goes so far as to be concerned for Frances as well standing on this stage that their father built.


One more sleazy act from John Edwards. (none / 0) (#9)
by BrassTacks on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 02:55:40 AM EST

Elizabeth is a saint. She won't live long and I suppose he can then move his mistress and daughter right into Elizabeth's house. YUCK. The man disgusts me. And I used to like him! Shame on me. And SHAME on him!

Hold on to your hat (none / 0) (#16)
by mmc9431 on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 07:33:54 AM EST

I smell a Fox reality show in the works!

Don't know if you address this, but, The Enquirer? (none / 0) (#33)
by vicndabx on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 11:29:54 AM EST

Elizabeth Edwards told The Enquirer that she.....

Seriously?

: Title should read "you've addressed" (none / 0) (#34)
by vicndabx on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 11:31:02 AM EST

fast fingers, slow brain

Yep. As crazy as it sounds (none / 0) (#38)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 12:55:58 PM EST

I think E might better be served by loving rather than hating.

Strongly agree (none / 0) (#51)
by CST on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 02:42:38 PM EST

With very recent personal experience having seen what happens when the child is accepted, and also when the child is not. You can't choose your parents. The sins of the father should not be carried by the child.

So she's going to Wilmington (none / 0) (#58)
by lilburro on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 06:08:09 PM EST

perhaps I should get a job with the National Enquirer and do some on the ground reporting.

: Job security :) (none / 0) (#62)
by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 09:10:31 PM EST

I couldn't care less about the personal story here (none / 0) (#64)
by phat on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 02:09:38 AM EST

I mean, whatever. What I think about is why he insisted on continuing on running for president with all this. It's likely all about ego. But I can also imagine him knowing he was a stalking horse.

Knowing what I know about internal polling and strategy I can't imagine anyone in his campaign thought he had a chance, going into Iowa. Granted, he may have had terrible advisers, but I doubt it. Maybe he thought he had a fantastic field organization. If he thought that, he was lied to. I don't believe it. He had to have known he would lose and he kept going.

Why would he do that? Usually it's hubris or something more tangible.