“Isn’t that funny? You know, when I first met him, the first week of our relationship, I said to him, ‘For some reason I cannot call you John, it doesn’t come out. Could I call you Johnny?’ And he said, ‘That’s my name.’ And I didn’t know that, but that’s his actual birth name.” – Hello, America, My Name Is Rielle Hunter, by Lisa DePaulo
The photos are something else. The quotes match them. They’re all there to see and read in Lisa DePaulo’s interview with Rielle Hunter, which will appear in the April edition of GQ. The name and the woman Elizabeth Edwards wouldn’t even let Oprah utter or cite, like that would keep this story bottled tightly, confirming the denial Mrs. Edwards revealed. And there’s art.
There is also a larger narrative than we’ve heard before. Ms. Hunter talks about the Edwardses’ marriage as “dysfunctional and toxic and awful” for “many, many years,” saying Mrs. Edwards was in “denial.” That the relationship was “abusive.” The word “emasculated” also used to describe what she’d never do to “Johnny.” The undercurrent in her quotes obvious. Then there is the throw away line about astrology. DePaulo, in the end, getting a very good glimpse into the woman who has been defined so far by everyone else.
Flash to that one momentous day March when the Edwardses doubled down and assured a larger tragedy.
That day in March ’07, when he and Elizabeth stood before the cameras and announced that her cancer had returned and was incurable but they were staying in the race—at that point, the two of you had been together for thirteen months. Where were you, and what were you thinking?
I was in New Jersey. [laughs] Andrew Young says that he was planning a tryst for my birthday. In frickin’ Iowa. One hundred percent fiction. I was in Jersey, no plans for a birthday tryst at all, and Johnny… I believe he was in Iowa, and he left to go back, for Elizabeth. And my surprise was that they stayed in the race. I was shocked. I really viewed it as reckless. And what’s interesting is that she wanted to stay in. That’s the key. He wanted to get out, and she wanted to stay in.
He wanted to get out because she was sick? Or because of you?
He wanted to get out because of everything. The last three months of his life had been hell. And he just… he was on the fence about announcing, interestingly, in New Orleans. She actually pushed him to announce as well. Of course, she didn’t have all the facts. She was in denial about a lot of facts. And I say she was in denial because, you know, their relationship has been dysfunctional and toxic and awful for many, many years. And she was aware of, um, problems and chose to ignore them.
By problems, do you mean other women before you?
In part, yes.
Rielle Hunter on relationships:
“I feel comfortable talking now, because Johnny went public and made a statement admitting paternity. I didn’t feel like I could ever speak until he did that. Because had I spoken, I would have emasculated him. And I could not emasculate him. Also, it is not my desire to teach my daughter that when Mommy’s upset with Daddy, you take matters into your own hands and fix Daddy’s mistakes. Which I view as one of the biggest problems in all female-and-male relationships.”
Fixing the man’s mistakes, Hunter says, is one of the biggest problems in all female-and-male relationships. How about staying in denial that the man has made one, then ignoring it, thinking it won’t come back to haunt everyone. She could almost be talking to Elizabeth Edwards here.
The words if only are embedded in this soap opera. Not just if only Hunter hadn’t been so selfish, or if only John Edwards had cared enough about his supporters and his family to at least be cautious when sleeping around; but also if only Elizabeth Edwards had refused to cover up John’s affair, then trudged forward with his presidential campaign, making their family the anchor of who he was as a candidate. If only…
When you think how badly the traditional news media, along with new media, especially on the Democratic side, blew this story it says something larger about the state of reportage, especially the cozy, protective nature of the press. Haggling for access at every moment, there is no independence anymore, as well as no appetite for a really good story; one that has actually turned out to be important, as it revealed another level of rot at the center of our politics.
The more the political apparatus protects the politician at the center of the myth being spun, the farther away We the People get to a representative government by mere mortal men and women. As in all things, follow the money.
And whatever you think of Rielle Hunter, she finally gets to say her piece. What’s at the bottom for Ms. Hunter is an ordinary tale of lightning striking, as she tells it, “I fell in love with him. Head over heels in love. I was a goner.”
“I mean, just for starters, I never ‘hit on’ Johnny. I’m not a predator, I’m not a gold digger, I’m not the stalker. I didn’t have any power in that way in our relationship. He held all the power.”
Obviously, Ms. Hunter had plenty of her own power, even as she saw a victim in John Edwards, which is a stunning depiction at this point to weave.
“… Most of his mistakes or errors in judgment were because of his fear of the wrath of Elizabeth. He’s allowed himself to be pushed into a lot of things that he wouldn’t normally do because of Elizabeth’s story line. And the spin that she wants to put out there. He was emasculated. And you know, the wrath of Elizabeth is a mighty wrath.”
There is a lot more to Mr. Edwards’ story than we yet know.
“[Elizabeth] was in denial about a lot of facts. And I say she was in denial because, you know, their relationship has been dysfunctional and toxic and awful for many, many years. And she was aware of, um, problems and chose to ignore them. … [...] “And, well, first of all, infidelity doesn’t happen in healthy marriages. The break in the marriage happens before the infidelity. And that break happened, you know, two and a half decades before I got there. So the home was wrecked already. I was not the Home Wrecker.”
That the National Enquirer is being considered for a Pulitzer is obviously earth shattering as media stories go, but whether they win it or not history has been written on this one.
You’d think after Newsweek blew the Lewinski story, with Matt Drudge breaking it because of their reluctance, that news organizations would be less reticent to report a story they’ve uncovered, telling what they know and can prove to the public.
Instead, the media colludes to protect our politicians, making the myth campaign gurus concoct more important than telling the people the truth. It’s rotting our democratic republic, and souring the people on our system.
The whole story makes me sad and sick at the sametime. I cannot believe I voted for John Kerry and John Edwards and John Edwards could have been the vice president. I actually thought he was a good guy who wanted to help the low-income people and help this country and I was so stupid to fall for it. I wish I could say that I feel sorry for John Edwards but I hope karma gets him and gets him good. The way he did Hillary Clinton during the primary I will never forget. Things like this makes people not want to trust there politicians.
Perhaps I’m naive, (I really don’t think I am), but the coverage of this whole “affair” bothers me. Any cheating spouse, be they male or female, will descibe the spouse they are cheating on as a .itch or .astard. Goes with the territory. May be self-justification as much as anything. So of course “Johnny” said she was a witch, and of course the mistress thinks she was a witch.
Going back to the story about Elizabeth having a meltdown over staffers not getting health coverage. This is a woman who has seen the medical bills that can be run up when you are going through chemo. The last time I saw a chemo bill was 15 years ago, and a single treatment was 8 grand. What does a single treatment cost now? It doesn’t matter how wealthy you are, you don’t want to see that amount of cash going out the door. Being less than happy with people failing to get health insurance coverage for the campaign staff, plus or minus the Edwards’, makes perfect sense to me.
During the Kerry campaign I hung out on the Kerry blog. From time to time, late at night, Elizabeth would come on and chat. She sure didn’t come across as she is being portrayed. Maybe I’m naive.
What is wrong with Dem Vice Presidential candidates? Remember Joe Lieberman he ran with Al Gore in 2000…Now, look at him in 2010 the man is practically a “male hooker” for special interest groups an his Republican friends…Just think about it folks Lieberman almost became V.P….sicking thought nowadays. But back in 2000 people were patting him on the back after calling on Bill Clinton impeachment… I think that was part of the reason Al Gore chose Lieberman too. Now, we have the story of John “Horny” Edwards…this man almost became Vice President 2004 & President in 2008. I wonder if John Edwards had not been in the Presidential race would Hillary had won in Iowa ?!…We will never know
I really enjoy it, thanks. I’m not that familiar with US politics since I’m an Indonesian. I did read the news on Edwards’ scandal revelation though I didn’t know much about him then.( I still don’t.) I hadn’t even heard his name until after the news nor am I familiar with his performance as a Senator. But nevertheless your piece of writing is very enjoyable and I agree, for the most part, with your views in that piece. Keep up the good job Mr. Marsh. I think I’m going to ‘follow’ your writings now as your style is something that I enjoy immensely.
JEEEBUS FREAKING CRISPIES hangin on a popcicle stick with pins through hands and FEET will these people PLEASE just STFU and GO AWAY!!! WHO freakin CARES about ANYTHING they have to say about their pathetic lives of lies and betrayal?!!!!!
We dodged a bullet, NO thanks to those hard working ivestigative reporters in the MSM, geuss they were to buisy fluffing Obama to notice this. I’ll NEVER joke about the enquirer again I’ll tell you THAT!
Hmmm. Had to reread this. Very good piece of journalism. With subject matter like this, it usually gets a fleeting glance on my part.
Of course, everyone will focus on the juicy tidbits and the photos. But, Taylor does make a good point about the media (and in all honesty society overall) that should get more attention.
To make it more obvious perhaps…’in this soap opera’, should be changed too…’in this reality show’.
We are a society that rewards bad behavior. This behavior is enabled by the media. There is very little reward for good behavior.
A person can run into a burning building, save many lives and that person gets the overused label ‘hero’ and that’s it.
But, sleep with a presidential candidate, get a photo spread, and attention. Which when you get down to it equals money.
Criminal activity while holding office (Blagojevich) Get television appearances.
Knock up a Governor’s daughter, Get on TV.
Apparently act like total ass (Rahm Emanuel). Endless media coverage.
Not much difference between this behavior and the current reality show trend.
For example; punch a women in the face (Jersey Shore) and behave badly. Get a second season and increase in money. The list is endless.
Sad.
You can’t talk about this without talking about our culture.
Don’t all “other women” portray the wife as “crazed, disfunctional etc.”
It takes two people to have a dysfunctional relationship. What kind of person does it take to step in the middle of someone else’s relationship, then go national with soft porn photo spreads and talk about it like she above the fray and only “in love”?
Everyone stinks in this mess – and John Edwards was the candidate-he is the one who put his own self interest ahead of the democratic party.
max calt says:
16 March 2010 at 4:38 am
Welcome and thanks so much.
AliceP says:
16 March 2010 at 9:46 am
As for the photos, they’re hardly soft-core, but Freud would still have fun with them.
Guyski and Ramsgate you both make very good points.
Our culture has devolved to an almost unrecognizable (for me) point.Being a political junkie and having a range of hobbies and interests leaves me no time for pop culture. I have never had a interest in it, I could not pick up a People Magazine and tell you a thing about the any of the people within it’s pages. I don’t even recognize them unless they are older than 50.This kind of leaves me stupid about it’s effects on our society until something shocks me.
My daughter shocked me yesterday. We were having one of our conversations about parenting in today’s world. She was telling me that she had been seeking out websites to give her guidance. She had found a good one called, The Soul of a Boy. She was explaining that one of her worries was that she already knew little Sammy was going to be shy and sensitive and she wanted to learn ways of protecting him from over aggressive and over sexualized girls!! You know like the ones who are sending nude pictures to boys on their cell phone?? In grade school?????
Uh…what? That happens?….Tilt! The world has turned upside down…I am forced to acknowledge that I am a member of the older generation…who would have thunk this would happen to an old liberal?
I cannot accept this kind of behavior. Things have spun out of control.
Thank you capitolism for giving us a country in which the sexualization of little girls is driven by the profit motive and not one Bible thumping,properity gospel believing,free market spouting, hypocrite in congress on the right has any problem with it nor does the oh so politically correct left and forget about their stenographer press.
Sorry for the rant~ I think it has something to do with the picture of Hunter holding her little girl in a soft porn pose.
Taylor…I guess soft porn is in the eye of the beholder.I will defer to your expertise.
Soft-core is more honest and less creepy, imho. It’s intent fully sexual.
The picture w/ Hunter and the stuffed animals, well, it’s just creepy.
the sexualization of little girls
LLady, this is nothing new. It’s been around since “Lolita” was made, which caused such a stir back in the golden era.
What’s new is the myriad of platforms that can deliver it, as well as the independence of young girls.
But again, it’s nothing new.
Additionally, young girls know from a very early age the power they have, which some utilize to get what they want. At puberty, boys may act out, while girls manipulate. It’s been that way since the beginning of time.
Commercialism’s expanse does drive it, no doubt.
But the conflict to keep young girls pure has always been a part of our society’s quest, even if the girls themselves like to flaunt what they know intuitively can get them what they want through a wink and a teasing look.
A wink and a teasing look is one thing so is knowing your power, it is an entirely different thing for parents to allow their daughters to dress and act like they are cast memebers of ‘Sex in the City’ when they are little girls.
Sorry I was born in ’48 and my formative years were the 50s and the 60s notwithstanding this is all beyond the pale to me.
I so understand, LLady, but it is nothing new.
The undercurrent is what gave birth to Playboy in 1954. It’s why Marilyn Monroe was huge.
Young girls have to be taught their power, which is first manifested through their ability to manipulate others via their sexuality.
As for parents, I’ve interviewed many on this one and I’ve rarely found one who knows how to handle it, especially in the 21st century where liberation is unbound.
I remember when all of a sudden my daughter “blossomed” in the 6th grade into a real beauty, surprising both of us. She started getting snotty and thinking she was better than other little girls. I sat her down and really took her down. I told her that her looks had nothing to do with her character,they were a gift that she did nothing to earn.I emphasised that it obligated her to be kind because it gave her an advantage.She heard me and her behavior changed.
She has told me many times that that particular lecture was very important to her developement as a human being.I guess we were talking about sexual power even though I was not thinking in those terms at the time.
We come from the same generation, Lake Lady. Television was in its infancy, and there was no such thing as Facebook! We played outside; didn’t spend hours on computer games; mass media really has had a terrible effect on children’s psyches. That’s another issue altogether, but one I’ve felt strongly about for a few decades now, as I’ve watched and studied cultural/personality/psychology issues.
The pressures on parents in your daughter’s generation are so enormous; and the pressures on little girls and boys these days are horrifying to me! There’s a reason that the child-bearing years are for the young!
Only they have the energy to deal with it. I’m shocked by the sexualization of pre-teens and kids of 8 too. It’s television. The impact of that pernicious box should be clear to everyone; but too late– now it’s worse, with computers. I’m just glad I don’t have young kids to raise. 
John Edwards may be indicted from what I read. If he is convicted he’ll lose his law license. Wow. This is a man in crisis in every sense of the word. I feel sorry for him; but he brought all of it on himself, Shakespearean tragedy-style. This is a man who is emotionally dependent on the women around him, not strong enough to leave a wife he didn’t love; egotistical in the extreme and in denial about how his own actions made that dream impossible.
Hunter is a prime example of our mass media/celebrity culture isn’t she? I find all of that just so tawdry, but that’s just me. I cannot watch any reality program, those people are just all so SAD; it’s all exploitation, and people will jump at the chance to let themselves be exploited, just to be on television. Hunter probably got paid well for the interview; which is another issue changed from my own generation–checkbook journalism, which used to be considered contemptuous, is now just about everywhere.
I could go on with my “cranky old person” rant, but luckily for you I won’t.
Carry on.
noogan…we are in the same mood today
I thought I had the “cranky old person” rant covered?
We beat you to it today secular
Lake Lady says:
16 March 2010 at 10:38 am Sorry for the rant~ I think it has something to do with the picture of Hunter holding her little girl in a soft porn pose.
I noticed that too, and thought it looked strange. Somehow, the two don’t mesh to me.
I call baloney on Ms. Hunter. I think she’s trying to rationalize the whole situation and paint Mrs. Edwards as a monster. The point Taylor makes about our lazy media is so true, IMO.