Annelise | Indy Week

Member since Oct 29, 2008



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “The historic 2008 election—without John Edwards

Edwards is to blame for his actions and is scum for what he did to his family and potentially to the country if he had been the Democratic nominee.

Hunter is responsible for her actions, too, both in having the affair and in everything since then. She also knew he was a married man getting ready to run for the Presidency. Did she think she would ever be anything but another woman on the now too long list of Donna Rice, Monica Lewinsky, etc. that are nothing more than late night comedy show punchlines? Why let her off the hook when she was a consenting adult in the affair and the hush money?

The people who aren't to blame are Elizabeth Edwards, her children and Hunter's child.

Posted by Annelise on 10/30/2008 at 12:24 PM

Re: “The historic 2008 election—without John Edwards

The article is absolutely right that Hunter is a predator. (Not that Edwards shouldn't have stayed away from her!) She is preying on anyone with money even to the point of using her daughter as bait.

It's possible Edwards isn't the father since for that to be true he would have had to continue to see her after she was no longer working for the campaign and he was on the road - mostly in Iowa. Wouldn't someone else have questioned why she was around once her contract ended? Wouldn't word have likely made it's way to Elizabeth Edwards? He wasn't spending much time in NYC where Hunter lived and he wife accompanied him on some trips. So perhaps he isn't the father but it's simple enough to prove.

Hunter, on the other hand, is beyond contempt. She claims to be a new age spiritualist but look at what she's done. She lets people (a sister and someone named Pigeon) she severed contact with long ago speak publicly. Worst of all, she allows her daughter to be hounded throughout her life as tabloids speculate about her paternity. Talk about a narcissist! Eventually she'll have to face her daughter's questions but by then she'll have done more damage that can be repaired.

The people paying the highest price are the most innocent in the whole mess - the children - and neither Edwards nor Hunter are doing them justice.

Posted by Annelise on 10/30/2008 at 5:10 AM

Re: “The historic 2008 election—without John Edwards

I never donated to a political candidate until 2007 when John Edwards ran for President. Even though I had to scrimp and save to make small contributions, I gladly did so because I believed he meant what he said and was what he presented himself to be. Of course, I now know I could not have been more wrong and I doubt I'll ever donate to any politician in the future!

It is very unlikely John Edwards will have any public role, political or public service, in the future. It is absolutely certain until he resolves the open issues such as some of those noted in this article . . .

Who is the father of Hunter's child? (It would only take a simple paternity test to definitively resolve this question and there must be a legal way to for a man to force the test.)

How much money was paid to whom, when and why? (In the ABC interview, Edwards said he met with Hunter so the public wouldn't know what he had done. He also said he told his wife nothing was resolved and he didn't agree to pay any money. Those comments make it clear Hunter was pressuring him for money and he wouldn't provide any. So what was she blackmailing him with and why was she pressuring him for money when she already hit the lottery with Fred Baron's support. If Edwards knew about those payments, why would he even discuss it?)

Didn't Edwards question why Hunter was initially moved to Chapel Hill and how did he explain that to his wife? What did he know about her later being moved to CA along with Andrew Young and his family? (Does anyone believe Young would put his wife and children in the same house as Hunter and their supposed kid?)

Why do payments continue if everything is public? (It only makes Edwards look MORE guilty of every rumor. It also makes him appear to be protecting Hunter and her child over his wife and their children.)

Doesn't Edwards realize Hunter is entirely responsible, directly or indirectly, for the affair becoming public? (Hunter was talking about the affair, even to a Newsweek reporter. Who else could have been the source of the National Enquirer information? So why is he still protecting her?)

Edwards told ABC he would accept the consequences of his actions. He has yet to do so but his wife and their three children have. If he would, maybe, just maybe, he can redeem himself in some small way. If he won't, he should just disappear once and for all knowing he has destroyed the faith of so many who believed in him.

Posted by Annelise on 10/29/2008 at 7:29 PM

Extra Extra!

Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.

  • Weekly Newsletter (Wednesday) - The stories in this week's issue
  • Weekly Events Newsletter - Our picks for your weekend and beyond

Login to choose
your subscriptions!

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

© 2018 Indy Week • 320 E. Chapel Hill St., Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation