She is a videographer by trade, no? Maybe she could record her own story.

About Hunter: He showed her everything they were doing during the whole shoot so she has, as someone brilliantly wrote above, no (pants) leg to stand on!! And what you all forget- this is a woman who has a sex tape of she and John Edwards! So how can she be upset by this situation when she should be upset for breaking up a marriage with a woman who is facing death from cancer!!

Mark- don’t let this Andy Warhol 15 minute of fame tramp get you down!!

Personally I’d much rather see the nudes of Jennifer Aniston that Mark shot in the late 90′s that have never been published long before the infamous men’s tie shots last year.

I was thinking about their daughter, too. Although her mother must have signed a release for her photo to be published, and of course the editors have a right to use it, I just wish they would have left it out. It’s hard to imagine a toddler wanting this kind of “fame”.

I mean the whole thing was sooooo glamorous (heavy sarcasm implied).. the wrecked marriage, the harsh media glare, the failed presidential bid, the moving from house to house, the sex tape, and God knows what else I’ve left out.

Sadly (no sarcasm implied) there is an innocent child involved and Edward’s own family that is emotionally damaged by the whole affair.

There are some serious deeper issues involved with Rielle Hunter. She is an untreated addict – sex, cocaine, relationships. That is my opinion and I’m sticking to it.

It’s obvious that political media needs to push back regardless of the point of view. The only way to avoid controversy in the case of Rielle Hunter would have been to produce forgettable images. If that’s what they wanted, they hired the wrong guy.

I mean what the hell? “WHOOPS! My pants fell off!” I don’t think so.

She’s an adult, and a media professional to boot, and was perfectly aware of what she was doing at the time. I mean sitting in your underwear on a bed filled with stuffed animals and “Gee, they’re really ONLY shooting me from the shoulders up”. Come on.

My money is on this scenario:
- She does the shoot.
- The pictures get published, and she and any publicist she’s contracted are psyched. Controversy sells. (Why else would she be doing interviews if she didn’t want publicity?)
- Team Edwards, currently looking to repair his public image, catches wind and threatens a shitstorm of repercussions. (They can outspend her in court after all and could make her life very difficult through his connections if they wanted to)
- She pulls some story about how she thought it was headshots out of her now clothed bottom. She goes on TV with waterworks, straight to Barbara Walters, the queen of judgmental quasi journalism.

I’m with GQ and Mark on this one. She and Miley Cyrus can go stuff it.

There is also an inherent contradiction of ‘morality,’ if you will, in the following sentence from the beginning of the MSNBC piece (and I quote):

“Rielle Hunter is said to be upset with several somewhat racy photographs of her that accompany the long interview in the new issue of GQ in which she details her affair with John Edwards.”

Um, she gave a LONG interview [for a prominent national magazine] in which she DETAILS her AFFAIR with [married man and prominent national politician] John Edwards. (All caps for emphasis only.) And yet she’s upset about some slightly suggestive photographs that accompany the long interview detailing her affair with a married man and prominent public figure…? Hmmm let us ponder that…: yeah right.

dean buscher

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/John_Edwards_Scandal/john-edwards-mistress-rielle-hunter-knew-pics-gq/story?id=10109896

Seems Hunter’s comments don’t have a (pants) leg to stand on.