Sunday, August 10, 2008

Do They Think We're Stupid?



A little more on Edwards, then I'll shut up about it.

So, Edwards admits to having the affair, but goes to great pains to stress that it was during the time his wife's cancer was in remission and that he is NOT the father of the baby because the affair ended too early to make that possible.

Why is this so important to Edwards?

Because Hunter's child is 5 months old.

That means the child was born somewhere around March, 2008

Which means the child must have been conceived around June of 2007.

On March 22, 2007, Elizabeth Edwards announced that her cancer had returned and was incurable.

If Edwards is the father of Hunter's baby, that means he was humping Hunter and spreading his demon seed with full knowledge that his wife had incurable cancer.

"Edwards said he was willing to take a paternity test to clear up the question.

"Happy to take a paternity test ... would love to see it happen," he said in an interview with ABC News."

Conveniently no father is listed on the birth certificate and a former Edwards campaign staffer, Andrew Young, has stepped forward to take one for the team and claims he is the father.

What, was she just the campaign crew-slut or something?

Young has even said he is willing to take a DNA test to clear the matter up once and for all.

But darn the luck, Hunter is refusing to participate.

"In a statement he provided to the Washington Post, attorney Robert Gordon said that Rielle Hunter is a private citizen and that she will not comment further on the media frenzy sparked Friday when Edwards publicly acknowledged the affair.

"She wishes to maintain her privacy" and the privacy of her child, Gordon said in the statement. "Furthermore, Rielle will not participate in DNA testing or any other invasion of her ... privacy now or in the future."

Could any of this parental ambiguity be tied to the roughly $114,000 Hunter received in 2006 and 2007 for "Website/Internet services"?

Again, just how fucking stupid do they think we are?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/09/edwards.paternity/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/08/edwards.affair/index.html

5 comments:

Satyavati devi dasi said...

I'm sorry, I'm confused.

Would this all have been okay if his wife didn't have cancer? Why is it so insanely important that she did?

How exactly does that impact this in any way?

Is it supposed to make it a worse thing that he did it because she had cancer?

To me it's bad either way. The cancer is being used as some kind of additional sympathy shit plea.

It has no bearing on how bad what he did is.

Did that sentence conform to any rule of English grammar?

Sorry for being a bitch. I just woke up and I'm cranky.

Xavier Onassis said...

satyavati - No, it most certainly would not be okay if she didn't have cancer. I think I was pretty clear about that in my original post on this subject on Friday. But it was Edwards himself who pointed out that this all took place when she was in remission. Probably because he thinks that is the only way he could possibly come out with this with even a microscopic shred of sympathy. But all of these shenanigans about the fatherhood of the baby just make his timeline a pretty transparent and pathetic lie.

crseum said...

Wow! I am just about to blog about this but haven't been able to start because of the three year old terrorist. Esteemed sir, I beg use of your space to make two small points. First, based on my extensive knowledge of high level political goings on, $114k ain't worth keeping your mouth shut when you are sitting on something like this. If someone like John Edwards could even potentially be my babydaddy, I see potential for big money. Second, nothing about her behavior says to me that loyalty to Edwards is keeping her quiet. My guess is it's more like a desire to make him squirm more. Hell hath no fury....Also I agree with your original post re: her resemblance to Camilla.

travel said...

It's never good to compound a lie with another lie, especially when you are a public figure who has solicited the support of John Q Public.

Edwards may be finished but the news media, now all of them, aren't. The truth will come out about the money. Always follow the money.

And, about Elizabeth. It's a funny thing about some women who have been betrayed by their husbands. They want to believe them, or at least forgive them. It's a failing of women I think. I know, I've been there. But, sooner or later the light shines through and we can't escape the truth. Poor Elizabeth. She's no dummie. I fear for what impact this will have on her health.

Spyder said...

Elizabeth should remove John's balls.