Comments on: Elizabeth Edwards on Oprah: not sure if Rielle Hunter’s baby is John’s

By: Mark Conrad

Mark Conrad — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:49:55 +0000

It is unfortunate that Elizabeth is in critical situation with her health and having to deal with the affair made public. But hey, John is an attractive charasmatic affluent guy who is married to a wife who is not at all sexually attractive. Of course the guy wants to get into bed with someone who makes him feel good sexually. Thats life–some people age well and others don’t and they can’t expect their partners to give up on sex for the rest of their life.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Connie

Connie — Sat, 16 May 2009 09:35:31 +0000

Also, a woman who is on top of things and responsible “doesn’t know” if the baby is John’s. Hey, news flash, have him take the test, find out, stop talking about it. Or is everyone waiting until Elizabeth is gone to get to that chapter? Wait until Reielle writes her book, then we’ll find out who seduced who, and what John told her about Elziabeth. I know she has cancer, but even before, look at Elizabeth, she is an overbearing, unattractive woman, of course he cheated on her, repeatedly. She is angry that it became news, that is all this is about.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Connie

Connie — Sat, 16 May 2009 09:33:16 +0000

Give me a break! The only reason Elizabeth Edwards is bringing this up is she is embarrassed that this affair, which was not John’s only affair, became national news. A slick trial lawyer who made his millions by twisting words and manipulating juries was brought down by four little words? How stupid do Elizabeth think we are? And if John is so concerned about poverty, why does he charge $90,000 to speak about it? Seems that could help a lot of people, including the mother of his baby. Men who want to cheat cheat; men who love their wives and don’t want to cheat, don’t; it’s really as simple as that.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Mme X

Mme X — Sun, 10 May 2009 15:42:07 +0000

Well said, Jules and Erin. I saw the Oprah interview and don’t understand the animosity twd Elizabeth. I will say, however, I thought Oprah was a bit much in the final moments, standing in the doorway with John and Elizabeth (crewmen awkwardly trying to hide themselves in background). Oprah came across as judgmental and it seems to me that nobody but Elizabeth, John, and the other woman really know what’s what here.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: MB Travis

MB Travis — Sun, 10 May 2009 07:52:04 +0000

Sweet, holy jesus. I didn’t think the woman-hating could reach even greater heights! She’s been publicly cheated on and she’s dying, but the dear, sweet commentators of CB shall prevail. I’m impressed.

Keep up the good work, gals!

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: Dannie

Dannie — Fri, 08 May 2009 00:09:17 +0000

OK …….. before I say it I know I’m going to get cursed out and some of your comments are going to be so hateful the site will be forced to remove the post but ……….. I had so much more sympathy for Mrs. Edwards before she decided to “open up.” When I hear her speak of the other woman and say “she is so different, we don’t know people like her.” I feel like she has this sense of superiority like she is so much better than the other women. When she says “women need to have respect for other women” I can’t totally disagree with the statement but damn the other woman respecting her, the other woman didn’t make a vow / promise to her, John did. Then she said if they were to find out the baby is his,(she just like all of us know it is her husband’s baby) that would not have anything to do with her, that would be his life. She’s a politician’s wife, trust me, it has already been confirmed the baby is his and John is paying the other woman handsomely to lay low. Now playing devil’s advocate Elizabeth has been sick for a while, that’s a lot for any family to deal with. With everything she has to deal with do you think romance is a priority to her. We all understand she is dealing with very serious medical issues, that has to be her priority, but …….. (oh I know you people are waiting outside my house) her husband has needs also. Should he have done it? The moral and politically correct answer is NO but John is no different than any other person (male or female) that is dealing with a stressful situation and have acted on their sexual frustrations. From the looks of it ……… (I’m just going to say it) John loves the other woman but he knows his political career would be trashed if he left his dying wife and young children for the other woman. We all know John has had his “needs” fulfilled prior to this woman but to get the woman pregnant, to still try to sneak around to see her and the baby, to give her $100000 from his campaign, and whatever else , he’s in love with her…….. I’ll take my beat down now.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: daisy424

daisy424 — Thu, 07 May 2009 18:00:07 +0000

I felt sorry for what she had to endure with the public humiliation of John’s slimy affair and love child.

But by standing by her man, she sets a horrible example for her daughters. Is that how she would want to be remembered?
Standing up for herself, being strong and kicking him to the curb, or make lots of $ to leave her daughters and son in her will.
Talk about a pity party…..

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: barneslr

barneslr — Thu, 07 May 2009 12:33:43 +0000

“an affair doesn’t make you an all around bad person”

Yes it does. If you are willing to cheat on the person you supposedly love most in the world, that you have made a commitment to, then I shudder to think what one would do to someone they didn’t supposedly love or make promises to. If someone is willing to cheat on their spouse, then how can they be trusted in any other area of their lives? They’ve already proven that they are unwilling to honor their commitments.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: cherryblossom

cherryblossom — Wed, 06 May 2009 18:09:14 +0000

You know…an affair doesn’t make you an all around bad person. I think that’s what she was trying to say.

And why don’t these people go on Maury or something and solve this baby thing?

Report this comment as spam or abuse

By: shadow side

shadow side — Wed, 06 May 2009 10:19:15 +0000

There’s another reason why both J & E Edwards are dancing around the paternity issue. John Edwards paid Reille Hunter money out of his campaign to make some videos for him (videos that were never used in the campaign). There is currently suspicion that she got the job (and the money – she was grossly overpaid), because she was sleeping with JE not because he needed a videographer. There is also concern that there is more money, MUCH more that came into RH’s hands after this and the source of that money has some disturbing connections to JE’s campaign. There is currently a federal investigation into this issue.

JE has defended himself by saying his affair with RH did not start until AFTER he hired RH to make the overpriced videos he never used. However, if JE fathered her child, given the age of the child, that means the affair must have begun BEFORE she was hired to make the videos and it strengthens the legal case against him.

This federal investigation is VERY serious and there is a great deal at stake. The financial future of Elizabeth’s children, her husband’s ability to support her children as the only surviving parent one day (he would probably lose his license to practice law), and the possibility of jail time. In addition to that, we don’t know how much trouble both Elizabeth and John could be in if they lose this case depending on how much of the cover-up Elizabeth may have engaged in once she found out.

Report this comment as spam or abuse