BREAKING NEWS: John Edwards denies affair with campaign worker

Former Sen. John Edwards today denied a story in the National Enquirer that he had an extramarital affair with a former campaign worker who followed him on numerous trips around the country.

Without naming the woman, the supermarket tabloid reported online that "Presidential candidate John Edwards is caught in a shocking mistress scandal that could wreck his campaign." The paper's only source is an unnamed friend of the woman who says the two met at a New York bar about 18 months ago. The newspaper quotes the woman as saying, "Sparks flew immediately. She never expected it would turn sexual since John is married and is running for president. But it soon did--and she fell for him."

The Associated Press reported today that Edwards told reporters, "The story is false. It's completely untrue, ridiculous." He said the story was "made-up."

"I've been in love with the same woman for 30-plus years," Edwards added, about his wife Elizabeth, who is suffering from incurable cancer, "and as anybody who's been around us knows, she's an extraordinary human being, warm, loving, beautiful, sexy and as good a person as I have ever known. So the story's just false."

(This item was originally posted Thursday evening, Oct. 11. It was removed by an editor Friday but was reposted Saturday in a shortened form.)

(UPDATE: Since some have asked for more details on this post, here they are. Better late than never: Thursday evening John Edwards spoke to a group of reporters, denying an alleged affair, initially reported in the National Enquirer, which had become the subject of intense speculation on the web. The Associated Press moved a story on the denial, and our blogger posted an item on the Edwards denial, including some details of the Enquirer story. It also mentioned a Huffington Post item that identified a woman who worked for Edwards and a feature on that woman from Newsweek last winter.

Shortly after, editors trimmed the post to delete the Huffington and Newsweek material, believing it also had not been verified. About 10 hours later a Times editor, concerned about an item now entirely focusing on the Enquirer allegations, removed the entire post and comments, some of which expressed similar concerns.

After web editors discovered the deletion, they launched an internal discussion about the importance of not deleting items from the site without explanation. That resulted in the item being reposted Saturday evening, minus three more paragraphs of Enquirer allegations but retaining the link to the Enquirer story. A brief explanation for the one-day deletion was also posted. Since the reposted item no longer carried the blogger's name, he felt it inappropriate to be responding online to past reader comments, so he removed his responses.

Other than that, things went very smoothly with this item.)

Comments

[Christoph]

Publishing this comment will be a test of your honesty. I expect you to pass. We'll see.

As one of your commentators who posted here in good faith in support of John Edwards re: this charge, I'm troubled this blog post was pulled down for an extended period of time without explanation. Then it was reposted in truncated form. That's fine. You're allowed to edit, although an explanation of the reasons for your edits -- which smack me of a correction -- would have been proper.

Before this post was pulled down (by yourself? by LAT management? I'm guessing the latter and I believe you have a blogging and journalistic obligation to explain) you had made parenthetical comments to several commentators comments justifying the need for this post and pointing out your aversion to censorship. For example:

(Ans: We intended to ignore it for now, but when the candidate himself addresses the issue and no longer ignores it, how could we? Then we're censoring.--AM)

Screenshot here:
http://patterico.com/wp/wp-content/images/censoring.JPG

Patterico has posted on this here:
http://patterico.com/2007/10/13/la-times-blog-post-about-edwardss-alleged-affair-vanishes-into-thin-air

I took Patterico to task in comment 23 on that thread as I often do on a variety of issues. I do this a lot. I'm not his shill.

But Patterico makes a very good point that your removing this post for so long and then editing -- or having others editing out -- your parenthetical comments to commentators is highly irregular, a breach of basic blogging etiquette, and unbecoming to a serious news organization.

Will you provide an explanation of how all this happened?

This comment will be cross posted under the above referenced Patterico.com commentator thread so that readers -- his if not yours -- can get a fair understanding of either your willingness to blog fairly and discuss this, or not.

Thanks.

[Colin Mincy]

Excuse me Harvard grad Allison -

If your high profile friends who attended a four-year school at Harvard left to go to work for the National Enquirer then its because they've got about as much vision as Helen Keller. The fact that you'd defend the integrity of a gossip institution like the National Enquirer as a legitimate source for journaliism makes your intellect as deep as a puddle.

It is outrageous that a candiate like John Edwards who is first in laying out specific plans, how much they would cost, as well as how and when he would execute them can only get press coverage on the cost of haircuts and breaking news from the National Enquirer.

The saddest part of this whole experience is not that an insittution like the Los Angeles Times reports this as "Breaking News," but that people with questionable intellect would position the singlular source - a gossip newspaper who was told by a friend of a friend-as reliable! I wish life was like the show "Survivor," and we could vote some of you people out of the country. Then, we wouldn't have have what will clearly be 8 years of the worst Administration in our lifetime. (granted Kerry as President wouldn't have been too much better).

John Edwards will be a serious contender in due time, not because he's been spending so much time in Iowa. It will be as Rauol so brilliantly stated - he is the most electable. It isn't so much about Hillary being a woman as it is that she is calculating, robotic, and a politician's politician from the old guard. It isn't because Barack Obama is Black as it is that he has run the most vague, lack of substance campaign one could rum - too timid to put himself out there and tell Amertica what he'd really do. Hillary's all about puff-sticking her chest out with her "I am woman hear me roar," and Barack is all about fluff, "While it sounds engaging and great, I've managed to say absolutely nothing."

[Ellan Maynard]

I am disgusted that the LA Times would print this drivel. I have known the family for 15 years and know that John and Elizabeth are joined at the hip. Aside from morality considerations, logistical and practical consideratiuons rule out any kind of affair. John does not have a second to himself. His days and nights are totaly scheduled and he is constantly with a group of advance people or other staff. He has neither the time nor the inclination -- not to mention privacy-- to philander. This is the worst kind of irresponsible "journalism".

[jafrican]

The Barack camp has more to gain, if anyone is behind it. Clinton camp is ahead at least 30 pts. There is no need for her to stoop to this. Plus, do the Clintons really want their names attached to another "Sex Scandal"?. Personally, I am not surprised the MSM have not pursued this. Edwards is thier guy.
1. They wont jump ont the Clinton Bandwagon as of yet.
2. It is early in the campaign and she is still a "woman". Thats a risk factor.

I believe the story to be true. You have to be skeptical because the National Enquirer is reporting this, but they run the risk of being sued into oblivion.
Back o my other point. Barrack stands to gain more from this scandal so , hmm who leaked this I ask. The same person that will get all his voters when they abandon Edwards after the crap hits the fan.

[Mary Ann Dinan]

This item reeks of the stench of Karl Rove. The circumstances are a bit amateurish - friend-of-a-friend who tells the story, timing (the Iowa primary), for example. For Rove it's about as low as one can slink but he could have done better with the details. Edwards has more integrity in his little finger than anyone associated with the Bush administration starting with good ole' Barbara ("this is working out very well for them") and down to Mr. Gonzalez, the hapless lapdog that posed as our attorney general for a short time. Thanks to the Bushies, we are the laughing stock of the free world.

[Lulu]

I believe it. He is stuck on himself, and I don't think he would give up an opportunity to be "adored" by another beautiful woman..And I bet she is beautiful!!! Let's see what happens when he is a widower.

[Richard Bennett]

(This item was originally posted Thursday evening, Oct. 11. It was removed by an editor Friday but was reposted Saturday in a shortened form.)

Why was it removed, and by whom? Enquiring minds want to know.

[Charlie]

If the Clintons are not involved then why hasn't MediaMatters or MoveOn.org posted a blog defending Edwards from these attacks?

[Mike Friedman]

(This item was originally posted Thursday evening, Oct. 11. It was removed by an editor Friday but was reposted Saturday in a shortened form.)
Why was it removed, and by whom? Enquiring minds want to know.
I agree - I also want to know.

[Christoph]

"This item reeks of the stench of Karl Rove."

Ummm, not to put too fine a point on it, but isn't Hillary Rodham Clinton running away with the nomination with John Edwards a distant third? Wouldn't it be far more advantageous of Karl Rove to go after golf balls for now, and the Democratic nominee in the general?

[Christoph]

Thank you for your update. You responded to my October 14, 1:58 AM comment, and others' comments, plus blog posts around the net written about this issue.

Your response in the end was in my opinion a fair one. I believe more disclosure is better than less because otherwise you end up alienating your readers. On the other hand, transparency engenders respect.

Blogging has some special etiquette that has grown up over the years and this transparency is a big part of it. Granted, the only blogs to follow this are only those committed to ethics and reasonable debate... but I'd like to think the largest daily newspaper in the second largest U.S. city runs such a blog!

You handled this well -- in the end. Try to do it quicker next time.

I'll refrain from posting a wink smiley face here, because they are silly.

[jeremy olins]

DUDE ! It is going to be SO HYSTERICAL watching this scandal blow over and see you anti-Edwards jerks all EAT YOUR WORDS ! We are watching the filth ooze out of American society, and it will be YOUR DUTY to RECANT YOUR WICKED ATTITUDES the day you find that this pathetic little Rovelike meme scheme is a LIE.

HHAHAHAAHAHA ! ! I am stoked on seeing this smeared back in your faces, Edwards haters. It is fantastic to see your little lie complex spring to such tedious action, mainstream media ! Welcome to the CONVERSATION, los angeles times! now, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT HIS CONNECTION TO THE READERS ***YOU*** ARE ***LOSING*** BY ***HONORING TRASH LIKE THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER*** ?!?!?!?

It is every good man's fear to be falsely accused in public. You have handed our candidate a great gift, and we are thankful. The award from the lawsuit, indeed, will go to further the campaign. MERRY CHRISTMAS !!!

(Did you get a chance to peek at the date on this item? It is very old stuff. Why are you bringing it up again now under the guise of being an Edwards supporter?)

[Debra]

How sleazy can you get? Trying to attack a man's character when his wife is dying of cancer. John Edwards is the ONLY presidential candidate willing to accept public campaign financing. That alone tells you about his good character. That's right, not Hillary or even Obama have been willing to do this. The Enquire tabloid newspaper is trash and people who read this trash should read it inside trash bins.

[craigotron]

Instead of repeating this clear example of tabloid journalism, the Times should have worked to verify or dispute the 'sources' and report on the fraudulent nature on the accusations rather than the accusations themselves. That would have been a service to both the Edwards family, the American people, and good, ethical journalism. This is no different than the 'Obama's a Muslim plant', 'Hillary's a Reptile' (ask David Icke) and 'Ron Paul is a racist' ( debunked years ago ) crapolla that continues to surface during this marathon election season.
Having said that, good luck Edwards supporters.
As a Repub, I'm voting for my man, the not-racist, sweet, little-ole' country doctor, Ron Paul

[Priceless Hypocrisy]

Hoho, it turns out this blogger reported an accurate rumor.

John Edwards is not just not fit to be the president, he's not even fit to be a husband.

[Dennis D]

If the Enquirer Story was about Bush it would be on this weeks 60 Minutes and CNNs " Situation Room" by now.

[Dennis D]

It seems the NY Times had no " SOURCE" to allege McCain had an affair. Front Page smear on McCain if you recall. Can you say Media Bias?

[Dennis D]

Of course Blame Rove you silly fools. With not a shred of evidence you blame Karl Rove.

[John Jones]

He'a a liberal. This is a resume enhancement. No morals, scrubles, ethics or values, No Problem. Since liberals" lay" no claim to such things when they are found wanting no one is suprised.

[Jorden]

John Edwards is an ultra-swarmy personal injury lawyer from North Carolina who got caught wthe his pants down... the only reason the LA Times didn't run with this story is that huge cutbacks of senior, experienced reporters have left you with novices with no noise for news and no taste for the hunt. Your're a prime example of what's wrong with American journalism ... there was a time when you had reporters like Rudy Abramson and Gaylord Shaw, when you pursued a story without regards to political affiliation or ideology. Now, sadly, you have become mere panderers!

[dereck]

Liberals love to find hypocrites - just as long as they're not liberal hypocrites. And they are totally blind to their own feelings/actions while conservatives, who can be hypocrites as well, see liberal's bias plain as day.

Do you liberals actually believe that if Romney were caught doing the same thing presented with the same evidence / source that there wouldn't be front page headlines all over the country? Blogs running amok, liberals screaming "hypocrite!!", much screaming and gnashing of teeth.

It would be funny if it weren't true and the really screwed up part about it is that you liberals really can't see past your ideology and don't think the above is true, because if the truth hurts you, then surely it can't be true...

What's it like living in an echo chamber?

[jorge]

a sleazy lawyer sleazes out?

[cabowabo]

Since when did Tony Pierce (LA times blog editor)start working for the North Korean government ?
Using censorship to block the free speech of the citizenry.
When the latest allegations started up again about the Edwards hotel visit, Tony decided until it could be verified that bloggers should not comment on it.
Did Tony do the same thing for the Congressman "wide-stance" when that story broke ? It also was alleged to have happend.
http://www.slate.com/id/2195914/#latedict

So Tony can we blog now?

[Mark Shimer]

So I read that the LA times editors have banned any and all discussions of the Edwards affair. That doesn't seem to be the case from what I see. It's very fortunate to see that such a fair and totally unbiased news source such as the LA Times would allow it's bloggers to discuss a topic like this without banning any potentially daming information pertaining to a liberal candidate. Especially one who may be a contender for the vice presidential running mate. LOL

(Doesn't look like what you read is true if you go here:
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2008/07/john-edwards-af.html )

[carol]

Truth? Character? Since when were liberals required to
embrace either. The sleazier the better, usually, unless of course, it's Gingrich or Vitter or Livingston then it's open season on the opposition. The hypocrisy is laughable.
Didn't anyone ever note the "Jim Baker" hair style? Next the denial..then he will be accepted as "only human". Deliver us from these "fine" examples of "humanity", adored by their supporters and held up for admiration.
What about his concern for impoverished Americans?
So willing to let his own desires come first. No he isn't
the first and he won't be the last, but please don't hold this man up as a man of truth and good character. Some of us will not buy it.