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

[Michael]

This is probably the most accurate story that the LA Times has printed in years. The National Enquirer is a much more reliable news source than the LA Times. The Enquirer may have some questionable sources, but at least they have sources. The LA Times just make up "facts" and call it news.

[Jim, Beverly Hills, Calif.]

Very disturbing to those of us who donated money for his presidential campaign.

With the $400 haircuts and now the love child, I wish I could get a refund.

I am sick of the whole bunch of them, the Clintons and all.

[edward fitzgerald]

Who cares if its true or not he never clamed to be a servent of god what he wants to do in his own life is up to him and his wife not us. what he did as a senter is what matters

[Dr K]

So ----- where are all you naive, liberal waifs now that the "rumor", "innuendo", "lie", "invented story", etc has turned out to be TRUE?? Answer:

1) you're not naive -- you're hypocrites and liberal lackeys at worst, morbidly biased at best
2) you will never admit your mistake / bias or his adultery and audaciously lying denial even if both involved parties admitted it
3) if he were a conservative, you all would be screaming this story from the rooftops and reading out loud the details from the front pages of the NYT and LAT instead of being in your "vast left-wing conspiracy" to bury the whole thing (with apologies to the former first woman for borrowing her phrase -- which, ironically, she used to defend her adulterous husband when the "VRWC" made up all those lies about her husband and the (alleged) affairs with Monica..., and Paula..., and Gennifer..., and Juanita..., and Bobbie Ann..., and Elizabeth..., and Sally..., and Susie..., and Lencola..., and Christy..., and Sandra..., and Eileen..., and Connie..., and Dolly. Wait a minute -- they all turned out to be true, too -- I guess that Edwards really is a SAINT, now that I think about his Democrat colleague fellow-traveler.

[J A Martin]

Of course he did it. Dems love having affairs, Bill Clinton , Jesse Jackson, and now John Edwards.

[Disappointed LIBERAL]

I am sorely disappointed in John Edwards and the public trust that he has damaged for millions of hard-working, trusting Americans. He should be ashamed, and yes, he is a fool. I am a liberal who contributed to his campaign early on but then made the switch to Obama.

Reading the comments it is no surprise to see the defensive remarks posted on behalf of Edwards in the fall of 2007. Now there is an influx of laughter, "told ya so" and attacks on liberals for their hypocrisy. Those are not too surprising either, except for one thing....

Elizabeth?

She is probably the more authentic of the two of the Edwards's and she is perhaps who everyone is choosing to protect.

She is dying. She has two little kids and a young adult child to think of. She has been through the loss of a 16-year-old son. The woman is dying of cancer and turns out; she is married to a slug.

Maybe the press, the bloggers and all the other pundits are thinking of her.

[erik]

THIS SURE GOT SWEPT UNDER THE RUG...

[TexasRainmaker]

Curious about all you defenders now that he's admitted the "false" story was actually TRUE: http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2008/08/08/he-repeatedly-lied-during-his-presidential-campaign/

[ROD]

ITS TRUE. EAT CROW YOU LIBERAL IDIOTS

[Don B]

I hate that Edwards had an affair. But I think it's funny that the liberals just change the subject now and try to focus on somehting else.
Just face it: Kennedy, Clinton, McGreeve, Spitzer, Jackson and now Edwards.
Liberals politicians are not moral either.

[DigiAugust]

It is interesting reading posts above from Oct 2007. Simply nieve, head in the sand or hoping to change the subject. An extremely wealthy attorney/politician proclaiming to be a voice for the poor and can't tell a lie. Get real. It would be a odd if he/she could tell the truth.

[Custom Valances]

John Edwards' affair with Riele Hunter brings him baby girl Frances. His wife Elisabet Edwards, diagnosed with cancer disease, now must to deal with that news and think how to protect her children. Very sad and bad for Edwards' family.

[lisa]

I live in NC I am a rebublican whci really doesnt play a part in my comment but, for the most part we are Christians, everyone makes mistakes but what you have done to your kids is bad enough but to your wife who has stuck by your & is suffering from cancer & then this slut is waiting in the wings who stated on tv tonight she is waiting for you & basically said she wants to marry you.....this is horrible & makes you a horrible man how could you do this to your wife...it's bad enough if she is well but to have cancer....all I have to say is you better be getting on your knees & start praying & seeking God.

[Jimbob]

So, the question is: Does Obama run with a philanderer, or the long-suffering wife of a philanderer? Does he go macho grrr, or does he go sensitive and caring?

Or does he bring in a relative unknown to really rub it into Hillary's wounds?!

Oh, my...

[hoodornament]

Funny reading these posts now.

Edwards made a fool out of so many. Folks from his home state know how big of a fake he really is.

Thanks for the laugh this morning, though.

[Gerzim]

LOL @ Ellan Maynard who posted the following comment on October 14, 2007 at 07:59 AM.

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".