Blogs and Stories

Kathleen Parker

Elizabeth Edwards the Hypocrite

Elizabeth Edwards Matt Sayles / AP Photo

Whatever Elizabeth Edwards tells Oprah, she was her husband's co-conspirator in his reckless pursuit of power, and now she's cashing out on the whole sorry spectacle.

Xtra Insight: Watch Elizabeth's much-anticipated Oprah appearance.

Among modern sacrileges, those topping the list include: (1) visiting Mexico’s Our Lady of Guadalupe Shrine and asking, “Who painted it?” Or, slightly worse, (2) questioning Elizabeth Edwards’ motives.

Hillary Clinton accomplished the first when she viewed the Virgin Mary’s image, said to have been miraculously imprinted on the cloak of one St. Juan Diego in 1531, prompting the rector of the basilica to respond: “God!”

Elizabeth’s formidable, brave presence on the campaign trail was John’s armor. Family unity? Or conspiracy to commit public fraud?

Others are tiptoeing around the second item, as Elizabeth launches the latest book in her oeuvre of misfortune: Resilience.

I’ll say.

Having once mocked John Edwards’ vanity just when his wife’s cancer returned, it seems fitting that I chime in now. But first, a word of clarification: I did not mock Edwards’ hair when Elizabeth found out about her cancer; I wrote a column about John’s narcissism, predicting his political demise, that just happened to run in most newspapers on the day the Edwardses decided to go public about the cancer’s resurgence.

It was a case of unfortunate timing rather than malice. That said, it can’t be argued that I was stark raving mad.

Little did we know at the time that the man who built a populist campaign excavating houses from Katrina’s muck—while his own 28,000-square-foot teepee was under construction—was also managing an affair. Who says men can’t multitask?

At least, we didn’t know, though Elizabeth did.

This feast of human frailty would be a private affair, if only it were. Today, Elizabeth hits The Oprah Winfrey Show and appears in the June issue of Oprah’s O Magazine. Time magazine is running an excerpt of the book. And the blogosphere is abuzz with twitter. Or is that atwitter with buzz?

What fun this must be for John. I picture him wearing a hairshirt, walking the long, empty corridors of home and chanting: “Hail Elizabeth, full of grace, blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, not whatshername’s.”

As for Elizabeth, well, a book tour is designed to sell books, isn’t it? And nothing sells like the sordid mess of a fallen man, another woman, and a love-baby born in the midst of a presidential campaign. In her Oprah interview, Elizabeth says she has no idea who the father is. “It doesn’t look like my children.” Perhaps not, but, alas, the baby does bear a striking resemblance to her husband.

Might we pause here to ponder what kind of person refers to a one-year-old baby girl as “it?” While you chew on that, let’s shed our guilt and keep in mind that Elizabeth Edwards is the one who reopened this door.

Back to Top
May 6, 2009 | 10:15pm
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Digg
|
|
Emails
|
print
Comments ()

dixie-chik

Hell just froze over. I agree with Kathleen Parker.

|
|
Reply
|
11:48 pm, May 6, 2009

ivywingate

What is the point of this column? What good can possibly come from this? I don't understand how this moves the public debate forward in any constructive way.

|
|
Reply
2:03 pm, May 7, 2009

therese

Holy hell! Me too! A first!

|
|
Reply
3:08 pm, May 7, 2009

HuskyNan

I can't agree with the "hypocrite" label. I don't recall Elizabeth Edwards ever crying to the press about her victimhood, so I fail to see why publishing this book capitalizing on it makes her a hypocrite. Is the book tacky? Yes, but the bookshelves are full of tacky tell-alls from celebrities.

My problem with Parker is 1. her tone and gratuitous shots at Elizabeth's husband (wasn't the article about *Elizabeth's* hypocracy?) and 2. lack of balance and perspective. Elizabeth wasn't a politician; her husband is. Why should Elizabeth have to live up to public's (or Parker's) standards when Elizabeth has zero to do with the public? As for balance, where is mention of Sarah Palin's hypocrisy? A short while after asking the press to respect her family's privacy in regards to Bristol and her baby, Bristol appears on all three TV networks to discuss her pregnancy. Where are Parker's scathing remarks on the Palin family?

|
|
Reply
|
4:59 pm, May 7, 2009

mollycoddle

I agree; Parker was wearing her bitch hat when she was writing this column. It IS unbalanced. I believe that Edwards felt trapped when she found out about the affair; there was no good way to deal with it right after her husband had announced his candidacy for President.

Of course, if Parker ever finds herself in such a pickle, I'm sure that she will handle the situation with aplomb. After all, it is obvious that Parker is perfect; at least, in her own eyes. Aside from writing bitchy columns about women with cancer whose husbands cheat on them and father a child with some gold digger. Yep, aside from that small flaw, Parker must be perfect.

|
6:22 am, May 8, 2009

amusedandconfused

Probably because no one cares about the Palins. Period

|
6:20 pm, May 8, 2009

sailonby55

Holy Smoke! What has Kathleen Parker experienced even close to what Elizabeth Edwards has? I f Liz wants to make alittle money to put aside for her kids, more power to her.. Don't tell me John isn't counting the days til she's gone to replace her. LIZ should have run for president. She's smarter and has a helluva lot more integrity and loyalty than all those middle-aged guys who can't keep their pants zipped. Can you imagine her selling state secrets for sex? Puh-leease!

|
|
Reply
5:51 pm, May 7, 2009

Pallas

Parker is currently married and has three sons (ages?). It will be interesting what she says when her spouse cheats on her! Ann Landers became MUCH less smug and certain about "marital values" when her husband -- of many years -- informed her that he had fallen in love with another woman and was ditching Ann to marry that woman. Kathleen Parker -- this can happen to you! Don't be so priggish!

|
|
Reply
11:31 pm, May 20, 2009

Thebigkate

Link
"...She may be smart, but she doesn't seem to know much about men..."

Elizabeth Edwards has learned late what many women have known long: "Women grieve; men replace." Faced with a wife suffering from cancer, and himself an admitted narcissist, John Edwards quickly succumbed to "the kindness of a stranger!" A young, attractive, sexy stranger who zoomed into his aging, still charming image by telling him "You're so hot!"

It is easy to condemn John Edwards--harder to critize Elizabeth. But my guess is that if she really did not want him to run, she could have stopped him! And she did not. That says worlds!!!

|
|
Reply
|
11:50 pm, May 6, 2009

jackbutler5555

It's quite unusual that a narcissist would admit to narcissism. You probably know more about the subject than I do. So, I'll take your word.

|
|
Reply
1:29 pm, May 7, 2009

sonshine

That generality about men and women react to challenges is really very silly.

|
|
Reply
2:15 pm, May 7, 2009

jhub32

Let me get this straight, you're saying it's a wife's responsibility to make sure her husband doesn't cheat? And you're saying that Edwards was helpless in the face of a woman who told him he was hot? So you're advising us all that fidelity can only be expected of a man if a) his wife is monitoring his every move, thought, need, whim and hard on; and b) no woman anywhere ever gives him a compliment (let alone comes on to him--if that were to happen, then he's clearly allowed to cheat). Awesome.

|
|
Reply
|
3:03 pm, May 7, 2009

Hyeaghcheg

No, you're twisting her words around. It's not a woman's responsibility to make sure her husband doesn't cheat, but if he does, it IS her responsibility to blame him and hold him accountable; don't portray him as a "victim" of the other woman. Women make passes at married men all the time - what' matters is how the man responds to it.
Everyone sympathizes with Mrs. Edwards for what her husband's done. She, however, is guilty of being aware of the affair, yet supporting her husband in pursuit of the presidency. If she truly didn't want him to run, all she had to do was say no....you blew it. You should have thought about that before you wandered. She deliberately assisted her husband in misleading the American public and that is wrong, plain and simple. If they had been willing to go public with the information (i.e. Clintons, Jennifer Flowers), that would have been different. They could have laid their cards out for everyone to see and allowed to voters to make their decision accordingly.

|
12:54 am, May 8, 2009

Bunx05

Seriously?

I'm a man and I resent that. when I got married I thought it would be hard not to cheat (I was 21 and women were just starting to notice me the way I wanted). It is not hard to keep it in your pants. I don't need any help from my wife to be faithful.

And narcissists don't usually know they're narcissistic.

|
|
Reply
5:24 pm, May 7, 2009

Maezeppa

Women "replace" too. And they have life-affirming affairs while caring for a terminally ill partner.

|
|
Reply
9:16 am, May 8, 2009

amusedandconfused

As in the Bible: all the blame goes to the harlot/sexpot/manhunter. Obviously your marriage was perfect! Just keep your socks on there,Saint Elizabeth-- oh, right, you did! I mean, c'mon.

|
|
Reply
6:17 pm, May 8, 2009

msshain

Surely, there is some truth in what Kathleen Parker says. Nevertheless, to point a gossipy, nasty article that leaves you feeling soiled after reading... If she is representative of the Washington Post Writers Group, the ongoing demise of establishment journalism is neither surprising nor entirely to be regretted.

|
|
Reply
|
4:27 am, May 7, 2009

AlwaysOptimistic

I agree. I felt the article was over the top in "snarky". Which only demeaned the author, and disappointed this reader. Even when I disagree with Ms. Parker, I usually find she has "thoughtful" columns, but not this time.

|
|
Reply
12:51 pm, May 8, 2009

marcyhdg

Elizabeth Edwards made her choices throughout this sad saga. She chose to hide her husbands affairs while running for President, knowing that the affair would eventually come out with dire consequences. Imagine had he won the primary and than the news came out. Imagine VP Palin.
And now Elizabeth Edwards made another choice: to write this book. This is an admirable, accomplished woman who could have written a book to inspire, a book about strength and resilience in the face of tragic loss and devastating disease. Instead she chose to write a 'tell all' book that demeans both her and her husband even further. I would have gladly read the former and am embarrassed for the latter.
Elizabeth Edwards chose to make herself the victim when she could have been a true role model. What a shame.

|
|
Reply
|
7:02 am, May 7, 2009

Hyeaghcheg

Excellent summation of this article.

|
|
Reply
12:56 am, May 8, 2009

somethingworthsaying

"But wise women know that the world's Elizabeths owe the world's Hunters a thank-you note."

why is this? a thank you note for what?

|
|
Reply
|
7:58 am, May 7, 2009

gtbyrd

I was going to ask the same thing. What the hell does that mean?

|
|
Reply
10:48 pm, May 7, 2009

Hyeaghcheg

For bringing to light, his lack of moral character. The man she loved and admired turned out to be simple, sleazy cad.

|
|
Reply
12:57 am, May 8, 2009

ztower

Thank you. Yes, you can have a horrible disease and act irresponsibility, and should be held to account for doing so. Excellent commentary.

|
|
Reply
8:09 am, May 7, 2009

Globalarchangel

I can understand the cynicism, but there is an abundance of venom in this article that is unnecessary. The article and some of the responses sound like they were written by members in good standing of the First Wives's Club.

|
|
Reply
8:33 am, May 7, 2009

LovelyVelocity

People seem to gloss over a salient detail of John Edwards' calculated confession: He waited until AFTER he announced he was running for president to tell Elizabeth about his affair. (Of course, he lied and pretended he'd slipped once.) Elizabeth was really boxed into a corner. Dropping out is very different from deciding not to run. If he had told her BEFORE he announced, she may have been able to force his hand and get him not to announce. So let's not blame Elizabeth for being put in a weakened negotiating position by her husband. It was another betrayal. It gave him the upper hand.

|
|
Reply
|
8:33 am, May 7, 2009

Hyeaghcheg

She still had the option of making him drop out of the race.

|
|
Reply
12:58 am, May 8, 2009

Banjo1

This seems a good time to remind people that the MSM totally ignored this story when it was developing because it made a leading Democratic contender look bad. Only the despised National Enquirer kept digging until it all came out. I think you might say this tells us a little something about how far the left-wing networks and big city papers can be trusted.

|
|
Reply
|
8:56 am, May 7, 2009

Kirbonicus

"Get them evil liberal you ever-rightous conservatives!"

You make me laugh, Banjo.

|
|
Reply
|
12:03 pm, May 7, 2009

steve-annie

Especially the part about the left-wing networks ... what a joke. How does it always escape the attention of your sort that they are all owned by huge megacorporations run by Republicans? Look outside the box and you can learn a lot. For example, some of us knew all about the "torture memos" months and months ago. That was from IPS, if I remember correctly. It's so long ago I'm not sure of the source now, but there was an article telling all about John Yoo, Ashcroft, and the rest of them, including how they hid the memo that disagreed with the opinion they wanted to hear. You didn't see the story in the MSM because it would have been damaging to Bush/Cheney and the GOP.

|
12:39 pm, May 7, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

n--Y--wanting
|
|
Reply
1:21 pm, May 7, 2009

Bunx05

Banjo I must respectfully disagree.

I was living in North Carolina when the news of the affair came out, and it was everywhere. Everyone was talking about it and all the news casters were plugging it. Curiously, I didn't see much about it on Fox News though. I do watch fox news as well as those left wing networks. In my opinion, you shouldn't trust any of them.

Elizabeth did the same thing every political wife does when her husband is found cheating. She smiled stood next to him and secretly wanted to punch him in the head.

|
|
Reply
5:31 pm, May 7, 2009

amapola101

Is everything left and right winged.There are unfaithfull scum bag husbands in all parties all religions,all careers,all walks of lives, and if a station didnt run with it ...it was because they did not know it. They all love Sensationalism,it brings up the ratings, and all stories are on 24 hours a day in 7 stations.None Stop.!!!Nothing to do with democrats or republicans.They love a juicy,sexual,sleezy,steamy,story.and all love the downfall of somebody.

|
|
Reply
7:56 pm, May 7, 2009

evadiva1

Totally agree.

|
|
Reply
8:57 am, May 7, 2009

milkman57

I don't agree with Kathleen. Elizabeth has many issues in her life and she is trying to work them out by writing and speaking to people. It's not her fault she has cancer and her husband decided to have a affair. When someone goes public about their disease should they be vilified? Are they seeking attention or sympathy? So what. What is the difference if they go public about an affair or being gay etc? Maybe your anger should be directed at Oprah who has people like Elizabeth on every day or maybe her editor/publishing house who saw $ signs when the book was piched.

|
|
Reply
9:09 am, May 7, 2009

KarinfromCanada

I remember watching Ms Edwards as the campaign got under way and thinking there was something going on.At the time I thought it was her illness but now I realize the pain that was so obvious was betrayal not chemo.She made a deal with the devil and I can't blame her.Terminally ill with 3 children what would I have done.I seldom agree with Ms Parker and in this instance I think I would have chosen to write about something else.For instance it is Mothers Day on sunday and as someone who buried her Mother 12 years ago I know what it is like to make impossible promises to the devil and God for just one more day.John Edwards is a creep but do not let Ms Hunter off the hook.She wasnt a naive girl but a woman who decided regardless of the consequences to follow her own agenda.Rule#1 never date a married manRule#2never date a married man..etc

|
|
Reply
9:11 am, May 7, 2009

EllenFrench

Hmmm.so many of us smelled his narcissism..and he still swept thru the campaign..I suspect we are finally going to see the unraveling of the strong woman/beautiful man syndrone..starting with Oprah, then on to the View. E. Edwards has always been a little more outspoken than Hillary..let's hope she continues this trend a gives us a solid dose of where she went wrong. There are lessons to be learned here, and she has never shyed away from the truth...except maybe while 'inside' the spectacle that is our electoral process...Go Elizabeth...tell all!

|
|
Reply
9:11 am, May 7, 2009

steff47

The hart wants what the hart wants, he wanted to be president
and maybe she just wanted him out of the house becaues down deep in her hart she knew he wasn't their for her. Maybe it was eazyer dealing with her disease alone. The shock of the affair was nothing to the shock of the betrayal that her husband
Just didn't care and was only giveing lip service

|
|
Reply
|
9:17 am, May 7, 2009

LadyG2

Hey steff47: can't spell "heart" or am I missing something? actually, your spelling stinks as does your comment.

|
|
Reply
|
1:07 pm, May 7, 2009

This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.

|
2:21 pm, May 7, 2009

scrabble

Hey LadyG2, you know some people might not be as smart as you or perhaps as well educated, but they still have the right to share their opinion without being put down by rudeness and arrogance.

|
8:55 pm, May 7, 2009

EENY44

Let me just say that I know a thing or two about a young woman with children, a husband and breast cancer. My own mother was diagnosed at age 36 in 1971 and died at age 40 in 1974, leaving three children - 16, 13 and 11 - behind. I was the 13 year-old. And let me also say, that while John Edwards never impressed me, accept as a charlatan with a marketing concept about two Americas that he thought sounded good and he assumed he could sell - he proved me right the day I watched him scowl at the cameras and announce "her cancer is back". I don't think he even had the grace to say "Elizabeth's breast cancer" or "my wife's breast cancer". Then he announced he'd continue running with "her" blessing. It's what "she/they" wanted. What a crock of shit. First off, at that moment the subtext read - loud and clear - "I don't love her". That's right. That's exactly what his own malignancy - his self centeredness - revealed at that moment. As for her - I don't blame her at all. She was doing what a good southern wife has to do. She was devastated by the end of her own life in sight and the end of a loving marriage. Not to mention, she might be leaving beautiful children behind. When a man loves his wife, and his wife is stricken with an illness that might prove terminal, that man does not run for President. He, instead, makes himself more available to love and caretake when called upon. So it's not the two Americas. It never was. It was always, the two John's.

|
|
Reply
|
9:36 am, May 7, 2009

steve-annie

You are so right. So many of my friends and family were salivating at the idea of John Edwards as President and I just couldn't understand it. The thought that went through my mind the first time I looked into his eyes (back when he was running against Kerry for the '04 nomination) was, "I wouldn't buy a used car from that guy!" And even with all the "right things" coming out of his mouth this time around, the fact that he would continue a campaign while his wife was so sick and their children must have been terrified just nauseated me.

|
|
Reply
12:47 pm, May 7, 2009

jackbutler5555

What a talent! You read into his, "her cancer is back," and instantly knew all this stuff about him. It meant "I don't love her." Wow!

|
|
Reply
|
12:52 pm, May 7, 2009

EENY44

Go back and look at the press conference. That's a man caught up in himself. He wasn't too concerned about his wife. If you don't see it, you're blind. The guy is not an asshole bc he does or doesn't love his wife. He's an asshole bc he's a fraud and was willing to push his insincerity on on all of us. I was never fooled. Sorry if you were.

|
5:11 pm, May 7, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

n--Y--wanting
|
|
Reply
1:23 pm, May 7, 2009
Leave a comment

Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.

View Comments

Elizabeth Edwards the Hypocrite

by Kathleen Parker

Info
RSS
Kathleen Parker
Emails
|
print
Single Page
|
text
-
+
Facebook
 | 
Twitter
 | 
Digg
 |