Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Politics | 08/07/2008 11:00 am

Photo Surfaces of John Edwards Holding His 'Love Child'

By The Staff at wowOwow.com
National Enquirer

In July, wowOwow.com was one of the first media outlets to question why the mainstream media was ignoring the National Enquirer-fueled Internet sensation of John Edwards visiting the mother of a child reported to be his. Some outlets said it was a private affair. Others sniffed at the source, the National Enquirer, ignoring the fact that many of the racy tabloid’s other stories have been credited by major news outlets, including the lofty New York Times — on their front page.

But not this story.

The story escalated yesterday, with the Enquirer releasing a "spy photo" that shows the former vice-presidential candidate allegedly holding the infant, Frances Quinn Hunter, at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Los Angeles, where Rielle Hunter — the baby’s mother and Edwards’s purported mistress — was checked in.

This time, the story is percolating up from the web to mainstream newspapers such as the Philadelphia Inquirer and Dallas Morning News.

For the devotees of drama, here is the recap:

In July, National Enquirer reporters caught ex-Sen. John Edwards visiting his alleged love child and his mistress, Rielle Hunter, at the Beverly Hilton Hotel. In an almost surreal scene described on the Enquirer’s website, Edwards was said to have fled to a men’s room, pushing against a door while the reporters pushed in and asked questions from the other side. Then, Fox News confirmed that Edwards was in fact at the hotel trying desperately to dodge reporters. For many reasons, we hope this story isn’t true …

However, to further prove the veracity of the Enquirer story, their reporters found on the hotel’s website a picture of the room’s curtains to show that the beige-colored window treatments match the photograph. Click here to visit the Beverly Hilton Hotel’s website and to see the photographs of the rooms.

70 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

C Hardy
Plus if Edwards was just there to visit, which I am sure he wasn’t, why does he look like he just ran a Marathon b/c he is sweating really something awful…I dont think he would be sweating if he was just there for a visit…Use commen sense…
By C Hardy on 08/07/2008 12:41 pm
Deni G
Graet point C O! And I love your new picture. That is adorable!
By Deni G on 08/07/2008 2:23 pm
Deni G
That should Great Point CO ! Aliens have stolen my brain! Where is the National Imquirer when I need them…oh! busy photoshopping!
By Deni G on 08/07/2008 2:24 pm
Alessan O
John Edwards has worn that tee shirt on another occasion, there was a picture of him in an article, where he was at a gym in a hotel in NYC on a tread mill running, so the photos are definately photoshopped, because if they were spy photos, how did the camera get inside the room were he was, it’s against hotel policy and a violation, or crime to spy on people without their knowledge. Also it could be call breaking and entering to put a camera in the room. I believe a lot of Hilton hotels have the same drapes in certain room, it is definately photoshopped. Also, it was at night he was suppose to be visiting the hotel, these pictures were taken during the day. I guess this rag feels the people that read it, don’t pay attention to details, not to mention he was wearing according to them, a blue dress shirt with the sleeves rolled up upon entering the hotel and upon leaving. Edwards may be having an affair, but the photos are false. This is a sad story, because the aim is destroy his reputation and all chances to be a public servant. So far it’s working, the rumor is, he is no longer being considered for VP or a cabinet position, and will not speak at the convention as a former VP candidate in 2004. I hope this this story gets cleared up soon.
By Alessan O on 08/07/2008 8:24 pm
Deni G
Oh wow, how low can you go? How many things are wrong with this story and wow’s article? The Inquirer stated in it’s original telling, that photographer’s saw Edwards going here and standing there and running in the bathroom and staying there and then coming out and everybody said…where are your pictures, then? And the Enquirer said, oh we’ve got em, tons of ‘em. And this is it! none of the pictures of the tales described, but this!!? Really how does someone come up with such a poor picture? Talking about crappy photoshop! But the real story here is WoW. In July, wowOwow.com was one of the first media outlets to question why the mainstream media was ignoring the National Enquirer Really? Classy. Others sniffed at the source, the National Enquirer, ignoring the fact that many of the racy tabloid’s other stories have been credited by major news outlets, including the lofty New York Times — on their front page. How faux news of you. In July, National Enquirer reporters caught ex-Sen. John Edwards visiting his alleged love child and his mistress, Rielle Hunter, at the Beverly Hilton Hotel. How many things are wrong with this sentence? I believe you have misplaced the word alleged. It should read (for those who aspire to integrity in some small way) In July, National Enquirer reporters allegedly caught… To claim that they actually did so is either shoddy journalism or purposefully sensationalistic lying. And oh! A faux news confirmation! When you use faux news to back up the National Inquirer, in smearing a Democrat, the believability and your integrity both hit zero. How’s that “Change the World” Section coming?

By Deni G on 08/07/2008 1:31 pm
K O
Deni, Sometimes I agree with you and sometimes I don’t, but I ALWAYS admire your fervor. If I’m ever need protection, I hope you’ll be on my side! That last sentence made me giggle. You pack a punch, girl!
By K O on 08/07/2008 2:27 pm
Deni G
Thank you Kitty! How could I possibly resist such a fabulous face, as yours!?
By Deni G on 08/07/2008 3:55 pm
Frank Peterson
I’d loved to have seen it :-)
By Frank Peterson on 08/07/2008 1:38 pm
Mugsy Peabody
Give it a flipping rest already! Do men ever hold babies who belong to staff members? Does it make sense that he might visit them? Is it our business? Why are you proud of keeping this bs stirred up? You ought to be ashamed of assuming that “intelligent women over 40” have such a soap opera mentality. Or is that because that is what the WoW staffers have and you don’t know any better? This is sad and appalling that you keep this stuff up just to keep your numbers up. I’m embarrassed for you that you can’t find something of value and interest for us that doesn’t involve a vagina and a dick.
By Mugsy Peabody on 08/07/2008 2:56 pm
Elizabeth Bennett
Is it the anthrax thing? That the NE actually was attacked by the anthrax nut? Is that why the dear wowowow staff is so enamored of NE stories? Some sort of weird karma? Truly, this doesn’t interest me and really kind of irritates me. If this is the best wowowow can do, maybe I should stick to the funny papers. [At least Duke is at the Olympics in Doonesbury.] I continue to sniff. It is not news, it is not true, and it is not worth my time.
By Elizabeth Bennett on 08/07/2008 3:48 pm
Maurine H
Brilliant, Deni! Reminds me of the (alleged) telegram from William Randolph Hearst to Frederic S. Remington “You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war.” Yellow journalism led by Hearst’s New York Journal, (allegedly) forced the United States into war with Spain in 1898.
By Maurine H on 08/07/2008 6:04 pm
eleanor roche
Well, Well gals, looks like you were all WRONG. The only question now is, how long will it take Mugsy to apologize to the many people she insulted on the other “Edwards” thread insisting that the rumor about Edwards was false.
By eleanor roche on 08/08/2008 3:57 pm
Elizabeth Bennett
Eleanor, just about all of it WAS false. He admitted to an affair two years ago, not one taking place last October, which is what the NE reported. He denied that the baby was related to him. He denied that he paid any “hush money” to the woman in question. And he denied many other details of the NE stories. I still say, it is not news — literally because it is not new, it is about something that happened two years ago, and it is about a person trying to live a private life, who is entirely out of the public life, it is not true - as so many of the salacious details were wrong, and it is still not worth my time. Is it worth yours?
By Elizabeth Bennett on 08/09/2008 12:15 pm
eleanor roche
Hey Elizabeth, like I said before “I could care less” about this story. I just found the insistance by all of you that it was not true to be amusing. Especially the way Mugsy almost accosted people as they gave their opinions on the other “Edwards” thread. —And how do you know that “so many of the salacious details were wrong”? I’m sure all the truth is not out there yet. You were so certain he didn’t have an affair and that it was a lie—and he did. He denied he was having an affair, so it’s not a stretch to think his denial about the baby is a lie as well—so maybe it is his baby. Again, I don’t care one way or the other. So spin, spin away—but don’t you ever get dizzy?
By eleanor roche on 08/09/2008 1:50 pm
Elizabeth Bennett
The NE has such a stellar record of losing libel suits, you can understand my amazement that they got part of one story right. And I won’t even go into the stories that areEven so, I do not want to choose political leaders based on their success as husbands or wives; it screens out a lot of the good guys. Or would you want Eisenhower to never have run? And look at McCain; his infidelity to his first wife was very bad, and she was also ailing at the time. Interesting interview by Couric on this topic: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/8/8/162321/7729 So OK, Eleanor, you win one for the cynic squad. I suppose one could never go broke betting against the fidelity of an American presidential candidate. I just don’t think a two year old affair is really news. I see that others disagree.
By Elizabeth Bennett on 08/09/2008 3:18 pm