The New York Times is reporting today that John Edwards -- the former North Carolina Senator, Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee in 2004 and presidential contender in 2008 -- may finally admit something he's long denied: that the 19-month-old daughter of Rielle Hunter, with whom Edwards has admitted an affair, is his child.
The newspaper cites "friends" and "associates" as the source of this information.
The Times also cites a book proposal of Andrew Young, an ex-aide who had signed an affidavit that he was the girl's father. Young has since gone back on that assertion, but is now saying in a book proposal examined by the Times that the politician knew the whole time that he was the real father.
He said Mr. Edwards pleaded with him to accept responsibility falsely, saying that would reduce the story to one of an aide's infidelity.
If Edwards does admit fathering Hunter's daughter, it would be something of a 180-degree turnaround. Though Edwards admitted his affair with Hunter last year, he has denied that the child is his because, as the Times puts it, "of the timing and brevity of their intimacy."
A federal grand jury in North Carolina is currently investigating whether Edwards committed any crimes by concealing his affair with Hunter. These deliberations reportedly center around whether paying a candidate's mistress to make sure she keeps quiet about an affair -- and thus not damage the candidate's election prospects -- are campaign donations that ought to be reported. According to the Times:
When Mr. Edwards was running for president, and later when he still held out hope of a cabinet position in the Obama administration, two of his wealthy patrons, through a once-trusted Edwards aide, quietly provided Ms. Hunter with large financial benefits, including a new BMW and lodging, that were used to keep her out of public view.
Read the full NYT story here.
Editor's Note: This post has been added to since it was first published.

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

Donal
September 20, 2009 9:16 AM
I understand that birds, bees and educated fleas do it, but Edwards handled this even more poorly than Sanford with his soul mate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rynato
September 20, 2009 9:45 AM
John Edwards is about the only person in the world who is saying (until now) that he did not father Hunter's child, and I am pretty sure nobody believed that one anyway.
His wife must really love him. Why the fuck did he not fess up about this at the time? You don't dribble out bad news, you get it all out at once.
Thank GOD this guy didn't get anywhere near the nomination.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
blairza
September 20, 2009 10:14 AM
I am so pissed because I backed this coward because I thought he was more progressive than Obama and Clinton.
GO AWAY NOW!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffreydj
September 20, 2009 12:00 PM
I dunno. The last two posters apparently feel that Edwards now proves himself to be wholly ineligible to hold power for the unpardonable crime of sleeping with the help. RE: Gov Sanford, am I to presume that had Edwards gotten some offshore action instead, this would all be a non-story? Or is he of the wrong party to merit forgiveness? I do see the Vitters and Sanfords still holding their seats.
Admittedly, Grover Cleveland replied to his paternity accusations with a simple "yep, I did it. So what?" But Cleveland was a sitting President, and he also held office back in the Victorian era, when personal foibles of the hoi polloi were so much more indulged.
Thank heavens we're past that stage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kuyleh
September 20, 2009 1:54 PM in reply to jeffreydj
Edwards denied it, and then denied he had a kid from it. Sanford bucked up. There's a bit more to be held accountable for on Edwards' part.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
debbiedoesnothing
September 20, 2009 2:03 PM in reply to jeffreydj
It's not the sex, it's the coverup. Not only did Edwards lie, he arranged for payoffs and convinced someone else to sign a false affidavit. Suborning perjury, anyone? He tried to drag everyone else down with him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Buckley
September 20, 2009 10:41 PM in reply to debbiedoesnothing
Debbie--Perjury? Really?
Please tell us when he was under oath about any of this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lexicon
September 20, 2009 12:08 PM
If Edwards had been the nominee, this would have come out -- count on it -- and you'd be pledging allegiance to Sarah Friggin' Palin right now. Any reasonable person would have known this, but he decided to bribe his pals to cover it up. John Edwards is a narcissistic coward at best. And Elizabeth Edwards was also willing to let this scandal stew while her darling hubby torpedoed the Dems' chances in the election.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
subzero1
September 20, 2009 12:20 PM
Lexicon: You are right on! The wronged woman went along with her husband which could have placed the country under Palininsanity. No one deserves any sympathy in this mess. Just thank god Obama made it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Elizabeth2
September 20, 2009 3:37 PM
Agree with lexicon - to a point. Edwards can sleep with whoever he wants, I suppose, BUT when he act in such a way that practically guarantees the election of the Republican ticket in 2008 .... THEN he's directly affecting my life directly and he is showing despicable judgment, a kind of judgment I don't want to see used on other major decisions.
(Guarantee the election of the Republicans? Yes. HE knew the affair was there; he knew there were rumors already; he knew that he (and the rumors) weren't - yet - the focus of any real attention because he wasn't a frontrunner; and he knew the, er, morals, loyalty and self-restraint of the people he was dependent on to maintain the cover-up. Would you put money on his keeping it secret? And after Bill Clinton and *that* embarassment and vulnerability, do you think even Democrats would have voted for him in great numbers?)
As to Elizabeth Edwards, however. It's been established that she did not know about the affair when he announced he was running but was told only a few days later (so he could still say that she knew "in 2007" and muddy things up, the rat fink). Put yourself in her shoes at that point: you have a broken heart; a scum husband that you've loved most of your life; a belief still in the message he represents for the country; three childen - two very young still and one a young woman; and an incurable disease that will see to it that only your husband will be around for them in the future. Think about it: those last three facts would - and should - override anything else, I think. So I'll not make any judgments.
In fact, she may have done more for both her children and the party/country than we suspect or will ever know. Did she perhaps fashion a way out of the situation that did right by the party and country but also preserved (or tried to preserve) some dignity and privacy for her children? Would Elizabeth (like some of his high-level staff who knew about the affair were purportedly prepared to do) have stepped in and stopped things if Edwards had come anywhere close to securing the nomination? Until then, however, he was not doing harm to the party during the primary season (arguably helping it) or to the principles he represented (arguably helping there, as well) In fact, if you look back at Elizabeth's involvement, it dropped off markedly from Iowa to the point that she was barely there around the time of the South Carolina primary. He dropped out before Super Tuesday, and Elizabeth was once again in the picture (tho not speaking). Do any of us really know how that decision was reached? I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, because that is how a truly concerned mother would have handled it. (And it might have worked ..... if Edwards had stayed away from Hunter, after he was out the press wasn't focusing on him as much, just enough to catch middle-of-the-night visits to hotels) ----------- As a mother I cannot imagine anything worse than knowing that at some point, probably far too soon, your still-young children would have as their only parent someone who was capable of such betrayal and dishonesty. I suspect the interests of the Democratic party and even the American people weren't the major factor in her decision-making.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
klip
September 20, 2009 5:06 PM
Both John Edwards and his wife deliberately kept his affair secret while he was actively campaigning for the presidency. Why? Because they both knew if the affair became public knowledge his candidacy would be over.
I have read that some of his upper campaign staff were aware of the affair, knew it was a fatal flaw and had a tacit agreement to sabotage Edwards' campaign if it ever looked like he was going to win the Democratic nomination. Why? Because he was unelectable and it would only be a matter of time before Edwards' affair became public knowledge.
So Edwards, his wife and his upper campaign staff seemed to continue a presidential campaign and actively solicit contributions for a doomed candidacy. How many Edwards' supporters do you think would have still given their time and money had they known the truth at that time? I have no doubt it would have been a lot less.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jmnyc
September 20, 2009 10:34 PM
I agree with Lexicon. This guy was in striking distance of the nomination in Iowa and if he had become the Dem nominee he would have sunk the entire ticket.
I never, ever liked the guy and argued with many of my progressive friends that the guy was a fraud. He gets what he deserves.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Verified
September 21, 2009 12:02 AM
Being a North Carolinian, I've followed Edwards for a long time, even before his senate term, which most folks here saw as just a stepping stone for his presidential or attorney general ambitions. He was a lousy senator, noted for ignoring constituent needs and he had an arrogant, dismissive staff. He was a very aggressive personal injury attorney and had a cheesy way of smooth talking a jury and flashing those pearly whites. So most Dems here, even though we voted for him as the lesser of two evils, aren't at all surprised by the revelations about his infidelity. The saddest part of it is that he was able to convince his friend to perjure himself in an affidavit, just to try and save his egotistical backside.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?