The John Edwards statement, acknowledging his infidelity
In the wake of conceding to ABC's "Nightline," in an interview to air tonight, that he engaged in an extramarital affair, John Edwards today issued the following statement from Chapel Hill, N.C.:
"In 2006, I made a serious error in judgment and conducted myself in a way that was disloyal to my family and to my core beliefs. I recognized my mistake and I told my wife that I had a liaison with another woman, and I asked for her forgiveness.
Although I was honest in every painful detail with my family, I did not tell the public. When a supermarket tabloid told a version of the story, I used the fact that the story contained many falsities to deny it. But being 99 percent honest is no longer enough.
"I was and am ashamed of my conduct and choices, and I had hoped that it would never become public. With my family, I took responsibility for my actions in 2006 and today I take full responsibility publicly. But that misconduct took place for a short period in 2006. It ended then.
I am and have been willing to take any test necessary to establish the fact that I am not the father of any baby, and I am truly hopeful that a test will be done so this fact can be definitively established. I only know that the apparent father has said publicly that he is the father of the baby.
I also have not been engaged in any activity of any description that requested, agreed to or supported payments of any kind to the woman or to the apparent father of the baby.
"It is inadequate to say to the people who believed in me that I am sorry, as it is inadequate to say to the people who love me that I am sorry. In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic.
If you want to beat me up -- feel free. You cannot beat me up more than I have already beaten up myself. I have been stripped bare and will now work with everything I have to help my family and others who need my help.
"I have given a complete interview on this matter and having done so, will have nothing more to say."
A raft of questions persist -- such as why Edwards rendezvoused with Rielle Hunter last month at the Beverly Hills Hilton, if as he asserts the affair with her began and ended two years ago, and whether he will follow through with a paternity test.
If Edwards maintains his posture of having "nothing more to say" on the matter, it's hard to imagine he will be making any public appearances -- not only at the approaching Democratic National Convention but at events related to his much-touted effort to eradicate poverty in America -- in the foreseeable future.
(UPDATE: Later Friday Elizabeth Edwards issued her own statement. The complete text of that is available here.)
-- Don Frederick
Andrew Malcolm's immigrant parents repeatedly stressed the importance of active participation in a democracy. Early lessons included learning the alphabetical list of states by watching televised roll calls of national political conventions. That childhood exposure led to a lifelong fascination with politics, including 40-plus years of covering them and a brief stint practicing them as press secretary to Laura Bush in 1999-2000. A veteran foreign and national correspondent, Malcolm served on the Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist in 2004. He is the author of 10 nonfiction books and father of four.
Johanna Neuman is a veteran Washington correspondent for both The Los Angeles Times and USA Today, having covered presidents and politics as far back as Ronald Reagan. A former president of the White House Correspondents Assn., she authored a book on media and foreign policy, “Lights, Camera, Wars.” Most recently she was co-author of the 
Subscribe to this Blog
"Egocentric and narcissistic?"
Yes, but at least his purported birth certificate is not a forgery.
Posted by: Windfall | August 08, 2008 at 04:13 PM
This is why I'm no longer a Times subscriber--the fact that the LA Times put a lid on this story and censored its reporters is completely unacceptable. Edward's is indeed a public figure and now we find out that he was lying through his teeth while A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE!
The Times obviously does not believe that the infidelity of Democrats is important in any way shape or form. Of course if an unelected Republican spits on the sidewalk the Times will put it on the front page. I wonder why the Times is losing subscribers left and right.
Posted by: no longer a subsciber | August 08, 2008 at 05:18 PM
Your newspaper lacks any credibility. Perhaps we should all start getting our news from the National Enquirer.
(Psst. This isn't a newspaper or the newspaper. It's an online blog, not available at the checkout counter.)
Posted by: For Shame | August 08, 2008 at 06:13 PM
Aren't we all poors sinners.?As a Frenchman, I can't see what business the public has in being aware of anyone's private life. When the media and Hollywood stuff us with open sex scenes, how come they pretend to be squeamish about a politician's affairs ?
According to N. Hawthorne, one lady who had an affair with the local vicar was made to publicly wear a scarlet "A" for "Adultress"
. God forbid that there should be the slightest departure from your worthy Founding Fathers' saintly customs. We French are far from perfect - but at least we don't fornicate in public...
Briardounet
Posted by: Briardounet | August 08, 2008 at 10:58 PM