CPR for John Edwards


My wife is the most fiendishly clever woman I've ever known. A few years ago, in a moment of whimsy, she suggested that we start our own private firm called "CPR"--or "Catastrophic Public Relations". We would specialize in reviving the apparently dead careers of celebrities and politicians after disasters; getting Paris Hilton out of jail, getting Larry Craig re-elected, or OJ Simpson a new film contract.

Whether or not you believe that John Edwards is the father of a love child or whether or not it is a story or a "non-story", of one thing we can all be certain. Somewhere a group of real-life PR experts are huddled with Mr and Mrs Edwards desperately trying to come up with a public response to the non-situation. I say make some lemonade out of all this--but don't wait too long to squeeze it. I say you couldn't do better than to sell the Edwards' on something like the following statement, one that my wife and I have lovingly crafted together:

"Hi, I'm John Edwards.

As many of you must know by now, I have been accused in the pages of the National Enquirer of being the father of the infant child of Ms Rielle Hunter and that I have denied this charge. Well, nothing could possibly be further from the truth. I come here before you tonight to proclaim the real truth--I proudly and joyously affirm that I am indeed the father of Frances Quinn Hunter. I don't deny it at all. I think anyone who has seen the photos of me and baby Frances--taken without our knowledge or consent-- on the Internet or flipped through them in the supermarket checkout line can see how thrilled and happy and filled with love I am just to hold her in my arms. Now I know a lot of you must surely have questions about my relationship with her mother, Ms Hunter, and maybe many of you who have stood shoulder to shoulder with me during our political work together over the past few years might be feeling pretty hurt and betrayed by this news. I understand this--and I ask you to forgive me. I ask you to take just a minute of your time and understand how this whole thing came to be. And I have a feeling that once you do, you will see that this is not a tragedy at all but a gift from God.

As you must surely know, my beloved wife Elizabeth has suffered for some time from cancer. Over the years, both the effects of this terrible and painful disease in addition to the treatments for it have made it more and more impossible for us to enjoy, as a couple, the marital intimacy that every couple in America enjoys and has a right to expect. I guess all of you know exactly what I'm talking about here. Naturally, when illness strikes over a long period of time, it strikes both of you, and you face it together as a couple--and such things as carnal relations become very trivial by comparison. You just put it out of your mind and go on living your life as best you can for the sake of your family, for your friends, and in our particular case, for the sake of a cause we both passionately believe in--that of our fellow-Americans. But some time ago, Elizabeth, knowing in her great courage and compassion that she would not be getting better and recognizing that I as a man was prey to the same sort of loneliness and temptations on the campaign trail that any other man would feel, decided to do something about it. She encouraged Ms Hunter and me to become close, feeling that the companionship and support of her friend would help me during the long and tough trials ahead. This was an act of incredible selfless generosity on her part, and one that I can only describe as that of a kind of saint. Problem was, and I'm kind of embarrassed to say this, no other woman could replace her in my heart--and Ms Hunter realized this about me almost instantly. She, too, is a remarkable, wise, and brilliant woman, and I treasure the hours I was privileged to spend in her company.

However, as the result of our brief encounter, a child was created. We didn't ask for it, we didn't plan it--but once it happened, I felt that I, as a man, ought to do nothing to interfere with Ms Hunter's right as a woman to choose. Whatever her decision, she knew she could make it with the fullest support of both me and Elizabeth. Much to my delight, as a devout Christian, she chose to give birth to this new miracle in my life, Frances Quinn...

Please forgive me, I'm a little emotional here.

I fully realize that a lot of people are going to be wondering about my political future right now. All I can say to them is, well, to tell you the truth, that's kind of been the last thing on my mind at the moment. I guess you could say I'm sort of in the wilderness now, and will have to put in my forty days and nights out there. And I accept that. I realize that this situation looks pretty darned unconventional to a lot of you folks. But I just want to emphasize that no laws or rules or even commandments have been broken here--if we have erred or sinned, well I guess it goes to show that we are human. Just like everybody else. But throughout this whole time I have been guided by the wisdom and the wishes of the two very strong women in my life. It may well be that my days of public service are over for now. But you can bet one thing for sure--neither I nor Elizabeth will stop doing everything in our power to work for you and for this great country of ours. And I have a feeling that someday soon you'll want to rejoin me in working together for an America we can all believe in, an America that you can be proud to bequeath to your own kids--like I will to my own new darling baby Frances.

And that's really all I have to say. Thank you."

Heck, considering his political standing right now, if I were John Edwards I would give a speech like this even if I weren't the father of the child.

--

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
ABC finally gives it a bit (#108755)
by Steve Peterson

ABC finally gives it a bit of coverage --

Edwards Admits Sexual Affair; Lied as Presidential Candidate

--

Steven Palmer Peterson

God has forgiven him (#109079)
by tomsyl

sez silky pony. Huzzah.

There are two Americas: those who will take paternity tests, and those who won't.

--

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

It is Curious, I Wonder Why Edwards Doesn't Do a DNA Test? (#109081)
by Traveller

...they are cheap now, easy, just a swab along the inside of the cheek...off for analysis and done.

I'm a big D democrat, a former supporter of Edwards, but just in simple human terms....this is something he should do.

Really.

For himself as well as for, especially for, the child.

Traveller

I believe (#109083)
by HankP

the mother has declined to allow the baby to be tested.

--

I blame it all on the Internet

The Testing of the Baby Can (not) Be Compelled By Mr. Edwards... (#109085)
by Traveller

...actually that may not be true. This is a tricky area of law, (ain't they all?!?), that is changing always.

But if mom is married and declines with the agreement of her husband...maybe the court can't compel the testing.

The presumptive father is her husband....and that presumption does in fact control, now that I think about it.

Still, this is an area of Law I do disagree with and I'd roll the dice and try to get a different decision.

Hummmm

Traveller

The Wonders Of Discovery (#109130)
by M Scott Eiland

If there's a defamation suit, a certain reluctant woman with a suspiciously silky-looking rugrat and a three million dollar home is going to be looking at a rather humiliating deposition and a probable demand for a DNA test. If she's smart, she's given Edwards an ultimatum: "Drag this into the courts and I'll just hold a press conference announcing that you're the father, and you can whistle for the nice piece of real estate you bought me to stay quiet. Run along, pretty boy."

--

You guys are the lawyers (#109141)
by HankP

but if the mother is not making any claims against Edwards, I'm not sure how he could compel her to have the baby submit to a paternity test. I understand that if she is claiming he is the father, that he could bring a defamation suit against her, but I think that's highly unlikely.

--

I blame it all on the Internet

Think Of Her. . . (#109144)
by M Scott Eiland

. . .as a glorified witness to a car crash. She's in possession of the central evidence in the case, and she's sitting in a multi-million dollar piece of real estate that a glance at her income suggests she can't remotely afford--it certainly wasn't the rather shady individual who claims to be the father who paid for it. If there is a lawsuit, Ms. Hunter* will be getting a visit from a process server.

*--Just to prove I know her name.

--

I understand (#109150)
by HankP

but as far as I know there is no defamation suit filed, correct? So unless there is, I think the matter is settled (legally, at least).

--

I blame it all on the Internet

For Now (#109154)
by M Scott Eiland

Blaise is claiming elsewhere that Edwards could avoid being held to the public figure rules for defamation, and therefore can and should sue. Aside from the problem that the existence of that big house indicates that Edwards is lying about paternity, Blaise is clearly wrong about the standard of proof that Edwards would have to meet even if he isn't the father. I replied to Traveller here just to suggest under what circumstances a test could be required (and because hey, Traveller is cool--I like responding to his comments. :-) ).

--

Heh, I dunno about "should" sue. (#109160)
by BlaiseP

Most especially if he /does/ happen to be the daddy.

I have a solution! Yesindeedy.... put 'em all on Maury Povich! Court of pubic opinion. Oh the Sturm and oh the Drang. It's a pity Johnny Cochran has gone to his final reward, he'd have a field day with this one.

It's Not Going To Matter Now (#109161)
by M Scott Eiland

Edwards will drop out of politics and go back to conning juries into buying the latest junk science hitched to the mass tort du jour--he'll make piles of money. Hopefully, his wife will beat the odds and she'll recover and spend most of it on shiny things--and we'll never see the two of them in public again.

--

If only we could get a certain wrinkly gent to do the same. (#109163)
by BlaiseP

You know, the idiot who couldn't have made it into the Naval Academy if he wasn't a two-gen legacy, graduating as close to the bottom of his class as he could manage, then made propaganda confessions while in captivity, returned to his wife, also dying of cancer as memory serves, only to cheat on and divorce her. Then he goes on to reappear like a two-bit prostitute on morning bail call every time dirty election money is detected.

Yeah, that guy.

Scott's Right of Discovery v. Traveller's Presumed Paternity (#109172)
by Traveller

...they way this discussion has developed troubled me...Discovery Right v. Presumptions, what prevails?

Cal Family Code Section 7540:

Except as provided in Section 7541, the child of a wife cohabiting with her husband, who is not impotent or sterile, is conclusively presumed to be a child of the marriage.

*****

There are good policy reasons for this...wife has an affair, husband forgives, state has an interest in stability of families...Biological Father is, maybe rightfully, shut out and may not inquire into paternity, especially to establish visitation rights.

Hummmmm....there are exceptions, of course, but this is the broad view as laid out in In Re Elija V. (2005) 127 CA4th 576

However, I have defeated this presumption in a lower court, (Husband in Prison), later they reunite, does biological dad have rights to his child? Court ruled biological father does have rights...for a bunch of reasons.

Be that as it may....let's say there needs to be an answer to paternity to aide, or defeat, a libel claim...does the discovery statutes allow for compelling the DNA testing over the objection of Mother and Husband?

Damned if I know....but an interesting question to be sure.

Best Wishes, Traveller

IIRC. . . (#109174)
by M Scott Eiland

. . .Ms. Hunter is single--can't imagine why, she seems like such a stable and honorable sort--and the purported father is an Edwards aide who is married with kids himself. The birth certificate doesn't list a father. It's not the more prosaic "wife runs around on her husband and gets knocked up" situation. It's pretty creepy all around--I wouldn't want to be that kid.

--

If That Is True, Scott, Then My Original Premise is Correct.... (#109179)
by Traveller

....Mr. Edwards would have have an absolute right to compel testing to establish his paternity.

Her objection would not control, or, even be given much weight at all.

Simple stuff....whenever you have the facts right...lol...which can be amazingly difficult to accomplish, (sigh).

Best Wishes, Traveller

Interesting (#109181)
by M Scott Eiland

I wonder if anyone in the media will have the inclination to point that out to Mr. Edwards--if he really wants to know, he can. Of course, he'd probably answer something like "while I would appreciate the vindication that a DNA test would provide, I feel compelled to respect Ms. Hunter's request for privacy for herself and her child." Unless, of course, he knows that so answering will set her off and actually goad her into agreeing to a DNA test.

Thanks for the insights, Traveller--I'm rusty these days on family law and California Evidence Code issues, though I did take classes in both and took the California Bar Exam.

--

Yeah, I have to disagree with Blaise (#109158)
by HankP

from what I've been able to gather, any kind of voluntary public notoriety at all makes one a public figure, and running for President would certainly qualify. Edwards may be a good lawyer, but he's not that good.

--

I blame it all on the Internet

As of 4:36pm (#108851)
by eeyn524

(central), the top story is

CNN - Edwards
ABC - Edwards
CBS - Edwards
FOX - Edwards
NBC - Russia vs Georgia

Clearly the NBC thing proves the biased MSM will use any excuse not to cover Edwards.

It proves that they waited (#108853)
by Kierkegaard

until they had to--as I predicted, during Olympic coverage. This was a story last year. The LA Times sat on it--by their own admission.

Sometimes the media (#108860)
by Spartacvs

is weird and doesn't behave like you might expect them to.

--

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

That has to do with the price of lapsong souchong in Beijing (#109080)
by tomsyl

how, again?

--

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

Labial mediora, my a**! (#108862)
by Kierkegaard

n/t

Your a**? Thankfully that ain't the issue. (#109421)
by catchy

It's those loose lips.

Same to you I'm sure (#108865)
by Spartacvs
Samson in the temple (#108763)
by Kierkegaard

Though his locks looked a bit shorn in the photos.

Looks like you were right about this one, K (#108770)
by HankP

I have to say, I don't understand how politicians (and especially one running for President!) think they can keep this kind of stuff secret.

--

I blame it all on the Internet

Those whom the gods would destroy (#108777)
by Kierkegaard

they first run for president, I guess

Chief Editor at Wonkette had (#108775)
by Steve Peterson

Chief Editor at Wonkette had a long article on another site regarding this several days back. A quote:

Why is everybody so squeamish about this story? Because it ruins the 2008 campaign narrative, which is all about the grizzled old war veteran vs. the hopeful young star. Because, if true, it is a tawdry and tragic ending to a political love story that was nothing but an empty media performance.

The overall article is rather scathing.

One odd, personal bit -- the story never looked suppressed/avoided to me. That's because I get almost all my news off the internet -- and there were plenty of links lying around to whatever outlet was willing to talk about the story.

Which, of course, justifies my continuing to get all my news off the internet and mostly ignoring old media (though, admittedly, I'm happy to look at what in-depth reporting they manage to throw up on the internet.)

--

Steven Palmer Peterson

Eh (#108779)
by HankP

this really seems like more of a sideshow to me, other than killing Edward's chance at a VP nomination (which I don't think was that likely to begin with) it doesn't really have anything to do with the general election. Also, to be fair to the press, given the kinds of stories that the National Enquirer "breaks" every week, I think a fair amount of skepticism is a reasonable approach to take.

--

I blame it all on the Internet

How about (#108608)
by Spartacvs

you work your prodigious talents on preparing the apology speech GW Bush owes the nation in general and conservatives in particular? To be delivered sometime post November before he hands over the reins to Obama and thankfully exits the public stage for good?

--

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

I've already written it. "Not Guilty, your honor" (#108619)
by BlaiseP

n/t

How about (#108609)
by catchy

You work on bin Laden's driver's apology to bin Laden?

How about (#108610)
by Spartacvs

this:

Dear Osama, I'm sorry if my co-operation with the infidel during my show trial offends you, but rest assured you get the last laugh. Although my conviction and sentencing to 5 and a half years imprisonment, less 5 years credit for time served, means that I will not be released until the term of Bush ends. According to the American legal principle of catch-22 I can still be held indefinitely as an 'enemy combatant' once my sentence has been served. Apparently this means that I will probably serve my sentence in some part of Gitmo that's even more like a prison than the rest of Gitmo, and after that I get to go back to plain vanilla Gitmo. Which sucks, no?

--

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

you + your wife are sick puppies (#108604)
by catchy

and therefore must be great together. I'm jealous!

Recent Diaries
Links

Conservative
Liberal
Moderate/Mixed/Non-Partisan
Non-Political/Reference

Related Sites -

Polisci Applied (Aaron)
Intrepid Liberal Journal (Intrepid Liberal)
Obsidian Wings (Bird Dog)
Open Hand/Open Eye (locutas)
Red State (Bird Dog)
Swords Crossed (brendanm98)
Wagster Speaks (Wagster)
WatchingAmerica (BlaiseP)
The Social Pathologist (TSP)

Foreign Affairs -

Abu Aardvark
'Aqoul
American Footprints
Council on Foreign Relations
CSIS
Democracy Arsenal
Intel Dump
The Fourth Rail
The Head Heeb
War and Piece

Politics -

Ace of Spades HQ
Andrew Sullivan
Balloon Juice
Belgravia Dispatch
Captain's Quarters
Crooked Timber
Curmudgeonly & Skeptical
Daily Kos
Democracy Arsenal
Eschaton
Firedoglake
Glenn Greenwald
Global Guerrillas
Hugh Hewitt
Instapundit
Jawa Report
Lawyers, Guns and Money
Liberals Against Terror
Matt Yglesias
Michael J. Totten
Michelle Malkin
Moon of Alabama
New America
OxBlog
Patterico
Political Animal
Political Wire
Publius Pundit
QandO
Reality Based Community
Talking Points Memo
The Agitator
The Belmont Club
The Corner
Truman Project
Winds of Change.net

War -

Counterterrorism Blog
Iraq the Model
Jihad Watch
Small Wars Journal Blog

Economics and Business -

Angry Bear
Brad DeLong
Daniel Drezner
Mahalanobis
Marginal Revolution
Roubini Global Economics
The Big Picture

Science and Tech -

Bad Astronomy
New Scientist
Real Climate
Science Blogs
Scientific American
The Panda's Thumb

Legal -

Balkinization
Conglomerate
Ideoblog
Jurisdynamics
Law and Letters
Overlawyered
ProfessorBainbridge
ScotusBlog
Talk Left
The Becker-Posner Blog
Volokh Conspiracy

Sports -

Baseball Crank
Baseball Musings
Baseball Reference.com
ESPN.com
NFL.com
Only Baseball Matters
The Sports Economist

Books, Film and Music -

Amazon.com
Internet Movie Database
All Music Guide

News and Aggregators -

Asia Times
Boingboing
CNN
Digg
English Russia
Fark
Los Angeles Times
Memeorandum
MSNBC
Politico
Poynteronline
Slashdot
The New York Times
The Washington Post

References -

Wikipedia
Your Dictionary