Blogs and Stories
Elizabeth Edwards Fed Herself to the Vultures
AP Photo
Elizabeth Edwards’ appearance with Matt Lauer on the Today show only compounded last week's negative reception to her book.
Elizabeth Edwards tried to undo the damage she did to herself on the Oprah interview last week by sitting down this morning on the Today show with Matt Lauer. The first segment did the trick—it was all about cancer and the death of her son, and Elizabeth looked solid and sympathetic in her brave blue cardigan; but when she inexorably let Matt bore into John's marital infidelity, she inexplicably blew it again. In fact she made it worse. This time, she told Matt, she had written the book as much for the sake of her children as herself. Huh?
Some first TV impressions are indelibly strong and Edwards’ media blitz now is unlikely, in any case, to wipe out the ghastly spectacle of her Oprah exchange.
Edwards on the Today show; click here for full video.
The hazard of confessional books is how fast the world moves on while they're written. Hearing about that doggy old "misdemeanor"—as she insists on calling her husband's infidelity with a campaign videographer while he was running for president and she was fighting terminal cancer—just drags us back into the messy aftermath of the election season at a time when we are now busy trying to get on with a collapsing economy and save our own lives.
If she had stuck with her health and her loss, Edwards might have held on to our sympathy. But her insistence on belittling to Oprah the dreaded "other woman," Rielle Hunter, who had "spotted him in the hotel," was so embarrassingly self-righteous it almost made me feel sorry for the Democratic twinkie John, who was always under the illusion that he was the next JFK. "I can't deliver the line ['You are so hot'], because I don't know how to deliver such a line as that," Edwards told us, as if this mildly juicy come-on by a campaign groupie had itself been an unspeakable vice.
Edwards kept painting Hunter as a fame seeker, eager to glom onto her husband’s spotlight. Whereas it’s Edwards who has written the book and dragged Hunter into the media glare. The evil perpetrator herself has not said a word and is holed up at an undisclosed location, with her doesn’t-look-like-my-kids baby.
Edwards' professed desire for candor is such she deserves nothing but candor in return. I am afraid that she is crazy if she thinks, as she says she does, that when the American people saw her with John on the campaign trail they thought they looked such a happy and devoted couple. Most people I know thought that Elizabeth looked like an overbearing chief of staff and were mystified that her interruptions were tolerated by someone as clearly in love with himself as John. There was deep public sympathy over the tragedy of the death of their son Wade and later for her brave, unflinching confrontation with a deadly disease, but also bewilderment that she could use this precious time left with her kids to promote her husband's ego-fueled, phony-populist lurch for the White House.
Perhaps the worst thing about the Oprah interview was that it was happening at all. In no other culture in the world can I imagine the flayed, dishonored husband hanging around in the kitchen to tell the person who has just teased out of his wife a replay of his shame that no, he hadn't asked Elizabeth to change one word of what she had written. If he is not lying (again), it's tragic he did not do so, at least for the sake of their kids.
It all feels particularly egregious now that we have learned from George Stephanopoulos yesterday that when the inner circle of John Edwards' campaign began to think the rumors of the Hunter affair were true, several of them got together and devised a "doomsday" strategy of sorts to sabotage his campaign and stop him from becoming the Democratic nominee. No such worries about what sort of damage he might do to the party's electoral chances seemed to bother Elizabeth Edwards.
To sell her own blockbuster memoir, Hillary told Barbara Walters of Bill's infidelity on 20/20, but the former first lady had it all mapped out, a concise walkthrough of remembered pain—now firmly conquered with a slight whiff of well-rehearsed hurt. Resilience, Elizabeth Edwards' book is called, but both the Oprah and now the Lauer interview show a woman still so crushed by marital hurt she is woefully unready to meet the cameras. Someone in Elizabeth Edwards' life should have been found to beg her to desist from this muddled act of self-destruction, if not her husband, then her agent, her publisher, and how much should we blame ourselves in the media? Elizabeth fed herself to vultures. The most painful thing about watching her talk was that she was brave enough to face the truth about her illness but still unable to face the truth about her marriage and the "possible baby."
Tina Brown is the founder and editor in chief of The Daily Beast. She is the author of the 2007 New York Times best seller The Diana Chronicles. Brown is the former editor of Tatler, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and Talk magazines and host of CNBC's Topic A with Tina Brown.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Justice Clinton?
As vice chairman of Public Strategies and president of Maverick Media, Mark McKinnon has helped meet strategic challenges for candidates, corporations and causes, including George W. Bush, John McCain, Governor Ann Richards, Charlie Wilson, Lance Armstrong, and Bono. McKinnon is co-chair of Arts & Labs, a collaboration between technology and creative communities that have embraced today's rich Internet environment to deliver innovative and creative digital products to consumers.
Andrew Young's Revenge
Tina Brown is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast. She is the author of the 2007 New York Times best seller The Diana Chronicles. Brown is the former editor of Tatler, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and Talk magazines and host of CNBC's Topic A with Tina Brown.
Introducing Beast Books
Tina Brown is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast. She is the author of the 2007 New York Times best seller The Diana Chronicles. Brown is the former editor of Tatler, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and Talk magazines and host of CNBC's Topic A with Tina Brown.
Politicians Gone Crazy
Tina Brown is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Daily Beast. She is the author of the 2007 New York Times best seller The Diana Chronicles. Brown is the former editor of Tatler, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and Talk magazines and host of CNBC's Topic A with Tina Brown.
Ritarita
Tina-
Does this
Make you one of
The vultures?
BobbiTerzo
There's been much speculation about why Elizabeth Edwards would expose herself and her family by promoting her new book on talk shows like Oprah and Larry King. We all know that very brief interviews which don't allow such probing and detail would be just as effective, and she certainly doesn't need money from book sales!
My theory is that she took a cold, hard look at what happened to her marriage and her life. She thought she was married to a "wonderful" man, who was successful, loving and considerate, shared her grief when their son was killed, and took great pleasure in the two subsequent children they decided to have after that tragedy.
She respected and admired his business stance, his policies and beliefs, and his run for the Presidential nomination. Evidently, when she was diagnosed with cancer, he was extremely supportive, and the decision to follow through with his political ambitions was mutual.
I think she truly believed he had a single indiscretion, blaming this on an aggressive woman who pursued him, and also blaming herself. She likely had some symptoms before the breast cancer was diagnosed, and may have been overly tired, not a good companion or sex partner. Women are terrible about taking blame when our husbands stray: am I too fat? should I have paid more attention to him? is he turned off by the latest wrinkles or cellulite or God-knows-what-else?
So why Elizabeth Edwards is going on all those talk shows?
No, it's not just to promote her book. Keep in mind that she wrote a previous book after her son died, and she's obviously someone who finds writing therapeutic, and feels she has something to share about how women can handle adversity.
I think this is her way of making sure that John understands how much he hurt her, and even though she says that he's been a loving and attentive husband in the throes of treatment for this terminal illness, my feeling is that she needed closure, and that includes this "punishment" of him.
Is this unfair to her children? Probably. But it seems to me that she sees the future unfolding with John marrying the mother of the baby everyone says looks so much like him, and that means her children will be raised by the woman who invaded her life and stole her husband's affections, fidelity, and political hopes. She may want her children to know exactly how much John betrayed their mother, how he lied, not only to the nation, but when he told her this was a single, one-night indiscretion, prolonging the pain and embarrassment.
She wants her children, and the world, to know that this handsome, charismatic, supposedly devoted husband is not all that he seems to be. She doesn't have time, as Hillary Clinton did, to put things right, to obtain counseling and come to a better, more solid place in their marriage.
And keep in mind that although Hillary suffered great humiliation, she had her life ahead of her, not only as an accomplished professional woman, but with her own political ambitions, which Bill pledged to support. And there was no child...
Is Elizabeth doing the right thing? Of course not. But why should a dying woman whose husband has publicly humiliated her when she was most vulnerable feel obligated to act the way we think she should?
She's dying, and I think maybe she wants to go out in a burst of flame, instead of sputtering embers.
Ritarita
Tina-
This reply sounds
A lot like you.
Would BobbiTerzo be
Anyone we'd recognize?
Fentro
BobbiT - insightful and rings true. Good post!
seakiev
BobbiT, great reply. I agree, Tina is way off base on her editorial. Elizabeth has every right to say whatever she wants about the two people (John and Reille) who through their selfish actions, made her life more difficult.
Is she blameless? No. She went ahead and supported John's run for President even though she knew that if/when this affair became public it would ruin him. Maybe she knew this and was happy to watch him self-destruct.
But right now, she is simply promoting a book, and doing these interviews is part of that process. She is also getting to do what every woman who has been cheated on has secretly wished for: gotten on the rooftop and called out the two cads who hurt her.
This morning on Today, Tina said "we have better things to talk about". Really, Tina? Then why a) did you write this editorial, and b) go on Today to talk about your disdain?
steff47
Great reply Bobbi couldn't have said it better my self---- maybe it's time to stop blameing Mrs Edwards at this vulnerable time
QueenCeleste
Beautifully said.
Normandy
BobbiT, I don't think Elizabeth should not be criticized because she has cancer; I think she should not be criticized because she has a right to say what she believes. She wrote the book to help herself, her children, and to help others. She has helped me.
Personally I do not think John will have anything to do with this Rielle/Lisa Druck person in the future, he is smart enough to now realize she had an agenda from the beginning and he was fool enough, or weak enough, to fall for it. When we look bad on poor sexual choices we have an awakening, it is never worth it.
angi1968
I am furious at the reaction to Elizabeth Edward's book and they manor in which she handles herself. I am a survivor of infidelity. I say survivor because that is truly what it is. My husband had his indiscretion with my "so called" best friend of 17 years. He did this while I was caring for my best friend of 18 years who was dying of breast cancer.
This woman is doing the best she can. Her book does help people like me and others out there. Her approach to describing how she is moving past it and the anger and betrayal she feels while upholding her vows is admirable. It is real. It is the way I feel and many others out there feel. Who are any of you to judge her? Have you walked in her shoes? Have you been married to someone all those years, gone through the incredible loss of a child, gave this man the ultimate gift of children, and dealt with all of this while loosing your battle with breast cancer. There mere thought that her being overweight, not giving her husband enough sex or being a strong presence in his life and campaign caused this affair disgust me. That is what is wrong with everyone. THERE IS NOTHING THAT A WOMAN CAN DO OR WILL DO THAT ALLOWS OR MAKES IT OK FOR A HUSBAND TO BREAK HIS WEDDING VOW. If she is that bad GET OUT OF THE MARRIAGE!!!! This well she is fat, has cellulite and doesn't take good enough care of him or her is just insulting to women. Is anyone considering that these men have faults that are contributing to the behavior or looks of their wives? No one knows what happens behind close doors. It does not matter what happens. Nothing and I repeat nothing a woman can do or not do in her marriage is a reason for a man to have an affair and break his wedding vows. If he is going to break them then let him leave the marriage before breaking the "fidelity" in his marriage. Loosing the fidelity in your marriage includes the woman to loose a piece of herself, her identity, her self esteem, her belief in the marriage from the start and it gives their children the path or legacy of infidelity to follow.No matter what a woman does or does not do the husband does not have the right to cause any of those things to happen. I suggest someone starts rooting for the women in these cases, for the vow of fidelity and for the legacy that the children are being left by these cheating men. Look at the statistics. Most children who come from a family where there was known infidelity also have affairs. Let's rally behind Elizabeth. She did in fact do something for her children that no one is taking into account. She let them know what happened and how it made her feel. This will hopefully deter her children from ever causing the same pain to their spouse by committing infidelity. I commend her and tell you that her book helped me.
peaches44
I think the only person Elizabeth Edwards should be angry with is herself. While I am sympathethic regarding her terminal illness, I am not sympathetic about her delusional state of mind. Did she really think that she was in a great marriage? Obviously John didn't think so. If her marriage was thirty years of bliss ,as she would like us to believe, her husband would not have strayed, now would he? Does Elizabeth not realize that she looks like John's mother? Why has she let herself go like that? She has lived her entire life believing desperately in the fairy tale ending of happily ever after. Her bubble of an existence has now burst and she is struggling to deal with her new reality. I am hoping that she gets some real professional therapy which will assist her in managing her idealism against the real world the rest of us live in.
THINKNIUM
Agreed, delusional. The " I was sick, so it was other's fault." reasoning does not work with some people. Most women do let themselves go, but never admitted it. She looks like the muppet's red monster drummer to me.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
caryle
Good grief, Tina, leave the poor woman alone. Very vulture-like, your response. As you say to Elizabeth, leave it alone, why give it more exposure? You were cruel to another woman who has obviously experienced and is in great pain. As Gayle said on Friday's OW show: one never knows how one will react when put in the situation John put Elizabeth in. Show some compassion. Your response? Unneeded, as you say is her book.
baptox
If Elizabeth Edwards is in such great pain, maybe she should stay off the airways and stop publicly humiliating herself and her family by rehashing this entire sordid affair.
She is, ostensibly, an adult and can choose to deal with family issues in private. Her kids, unfortunately, have no such choice. She is foolishly attempting to vindicate herself by creating a legacy of emotional chaos in their lives. They will, after all, have to live with their dad after she's gone and may even someday want to forge a relationship with their half-sibling.
Normandy
Baptox, "Resilience opened on the NY Times bestseller list at #3, after only 3 days of sales versus the usual 7 days. Guess many, many of us love to hear what she has to say and value her perspective. She is widely respected, so I guess you just need to get over yourself.
aliberk65
i'm glad Elizabeth Edwards wrote her book and let all involved and those considering adultery know just what betrayal feels like, and how it negates all the hard work you put into building your reputation or legacy. Long after Elizabeth is gone, her testimony will live on. I applaud her for writing her story.
THINKNIUM
Betrayal is putting hard work into building reputation and legacy INSTEAD of putting hard work into marriage. Most normal man are not no-sex humans. He will go find someone else. I'm sure John felt betrayal from her first, betrayal of suppose to be his partner, not a bossy business partner. but of course she would never have thought of that. I'm sick of it was everyone else's fault.
Normandy
Tina Brown writes and empathizes as though she has been a "Rielle Hunter."
culinarygal
I thought the exact same thing when I read the article Tina wrote. Who has sympathy for a predator, or someone who has such twisted morals that they believe that it is ok to try to step in and break apart a marriage? I will bet that Rielle goes to church on Sundays and considers herself a good Christian too!
runnyc06
I disagree with Tina. When I watched the Oprah episode on DVR and then watched Larry King last night, I saw a woman who has dealt with unimaginable adversity again and again and again. She is clearly trying to reach out to other people who have experienced pain and adversity, which, unfortunately, is an unavoidable part of life. I watched Larry King last night, in awe of this strong, articulate, intelligent woman. She sets such a good example for all of us. Seemingly, she had it all, but privately, she was suffering more than most of us. I am so proud of her for talking about how to handle her experiences with strength and grace. I think she is so admirable for setting the record straight and for shaping the story of her life before she dies. If she did not speak up, the media would have shaped the story of her and her marriage and her family. She has given her children such a gift. I find her to be an admirable woman in so many ways.
dantescave
thank you! Tina, have you no soul? Can't you imagine for a minute that Elizabeth really, really, loved her husband and children and that civilization was lost, the meaning of her life and the discipline, what was all the strength and committment and sacrifice for when so frivolously tossed, like so much trash, when she was betrayed by her husband. What does it matter that none of it makes sense? I think you are all monsters...
dantescave
Right on bobbi!
Whittie
I am shocked and saddened by all the biting criticism Elizabeth Edwards has received. How dare anyone judge her at this point in her life?! She has most probably suffered great heartbreak by her Pretty Boy husband who she thought was "old fashioned" and loyal to her. Obviously, the other woman lay in wait for him and he succumbed. I admire Elizabeth Edwards' courage. As an attorney, I am sure she is an accomplished writer, as most are. (I am not an attorney.) I might buy her book myself. Writing about her humiliation and sadness, as well as her cancer, is most definitely cathartic for her - something she fell compelled to do. In other words, she just had to write about it. It makes her less of a victim by being truthful and brave about what she has gone through. She's taking the action she feels she needs to take by writing her story. Maureen Dowd, Tina, you two are really heartless! I'll bet you were the "mean girls" at school!!!! Elizabeth, you go girl! I admire you. You're a strong woman!!!
THINKNIUM
strong as the muppet animal.
Banjo1
It looks like two con artists are going down together. I wonder how often the Breck Girl came home and told Elizabeth how he manipulated another jury into a huge, unwarranted settlement. He thought voters were just a bigger jury he could con with his Silky Pony manner and honeyed words. it'll be interesting to see how long it takes people to catch on that we've put our own Hugo Chavez into office.
lmktacwa
get a life. Do you ever post anything nice, supportive, positive, or worthy of reading? Or are you so mired in self loathing and personal hatred that you can turn any event into your personal vitriol against the best leader we've had in the Oval Office since FDR easily. You are SO bitter! get help fast! Squeal piggy Banjo1, sqeeeeeal.
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--wantingfran1522
Re: Wanting WRONG just hide and watch.
fran1522
I agree with Banjo1 re: who the people (not me) put in office!
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--wantingjglass54
Thank you, lmktacwa. Apparently Banjo1 turns every article on here into a short screed on how he detests Barack Obama....except for the articles about gay marriage, in which he unleases his vitriol on gay people. See his comment about the White House Correspondents Dinner, where the "Soviet" decor of the Hilton banquet hall become about the Soviet-style "Dear Leader", Barack Obama. He's a piece of work.
SFGiants
Banjo1: Politics aside, you are one loathsome creep.
THINKNIUM
Let's put you into office, you are sooooo much better and smarter....
duchess5
I agree with you Tina,however the worst part of Elizabeth and her story is the book.10 years from now,this story will be barely remembered,now she has documented the betrayal so that her children can hate their only living parent.What a bitch!
snakesonablog
Perhaps you should actually READ THE BOOK instead of relying on second hand accounts.
There is actually very little about John Edwards' affair in Elizabeth Edwards' book. Further, what is there is not anything that would engender hatred for John Edwards.
mollycoddle
Oh, like they weren't going to find out about it anyway. Please. I have no problem with Elizabeth Edwards despising the other woman; she IS despicable. As is John Edwards. If someone is interested in this story, why shouldn't she tell it?
Elizabeth Edwards has been through hell. Her son died. She has incurable cancer. Her husband had to tell her after he decided to run for president that he had had an affair. And then the woman ended up having a baby. Why shouldn't Edwards be furious? If anyone is entitled to feel angry, it's Elizabeth Edwards.
Maybe this book will have a cathartic effect; I hope so.
Ankhorite
As MollyCoddle noted, the children will find out about it anyway. The book gives Elizabeth, who will not be here when her children grow up, a chance to tell them how she felt. She's entitled to that, and so are they.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Flavorina
connie47: thanks for saying that. As a cancer survivor myself 4 times over 25 years, it is quite strange that just when you are down and fighting, another situation (like cheating husband or job loss or death of a family member) raises its ugly head. Life then gives you two things to deal with ... maybe that's the plan: one is too horrible, so another comes along to buffer the blow.
Genni2002
Agree with you two. I don't like her, but she did go through the ringer and hey, if she can stake a little for herself and tell her side of the story... more power to her. It is really quite a sad story about life and struggles that we go through.
Sorry about your cancer Flavorina but excellent about your super survival!:)
Kahill
I agree. This was one cold heartless article from Tina Brown, going for some pseudo insight. While I am not at all sure why Elizabeth Edwards is putting herself through this, my heart goes out for her like never before and I wish her all the best.
cev1948
Tina,
Are you currently living with cancer? Do you have young children?
Do you know that you will die sooner than later?
She is a sick woman & John is there for her and their children.Elizabeth needs him now.
Your piece was cruel.
juliaharrison
I agree - Tina, you are cruel, and I hope you can find a way to ZIP IT when it comes to Elizabeth Edwards personal life. How she chooses to handle it is not for you to decide. Seriously, I wonder what makes you think you have the right to criticize a person (Man or Woman) for how they choose to handle something so painful - to actually ADD to their pain because you are annoyed? Get over yourself and try to be a little less self-centered.
Dorothea
What the hell? If that's what Elizabeth Edwards wanted to do leave her alone. I cannot imagine what it must have been like for her during that campaign. Haven't you ever wanted to believe a liar? Especially if that liar is loved? "Brave blue cardigan" indeed. Sarcastic and cruel.
deathbychocolate
What about acknowledging the responsibility of those seasoned tv hosts, Matt Lauer and Oprah? Both knew how this would play, but let it happen for the sake of their own ratings.
Lauer is live, but I have to hope he knows how to head off a train wreck. Oprah, however, edits her shows--she would have run this interview back and forth through the spools just to get all the choice bits.
Neither of them showed this woman the slightest compassion.
apparently
Sorry, but this prolonged attempt to wash the Edwards' laundry in public is so tawdry. Does the idea of retreating into private life long enough to heal up or sort out not occur to them?
quick2no
Banjo1 hates democrats, obvious, isn't it. Drips with venom and typical attacks of a Republican low information voter. Get rather tired of his posts.
Ritarita
He needs
To come out of
The closet and just
Get it over with.
End our suffering NOW.
Grow a set and stop
Beating around
The bush
Banjo.
jhub32
Oh, come on, give Banjo the credit he deserves--are you telling me you don't you find him to be a great source of guilty-pleasure entertainment? Like reading the Enquirer (or even better, the News of the World) just for the sheer ridiculousness of it? He's TDB's own alien-baby or Cheney-robot.
bobajabob
you are so right. I just stumbled accross this site and read a sh*tload of it just for Banjo's comments. Best laff lest I cry!
Ritarita
Oh all right-
Come home Banjo
I take it all back.
No more
Closet jokes.
Love
Rita.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
fieldjo
For the last time -- WHO CARES? What Puritan ethic are you and the rest of the media upholding that can actually stand scrutiny? 1. This is between Elizabeth and John 2. How many men cheat, how many women cheat -- and how many are actually caught? 3. How does cheating on your wife render you unfit for public office? 4. Who -- in public office -- does not lie, steal, cheat, taint information, withhold information, spin information (also known as lying) blah blah blah and blah? If the measure of someone's character is if they cheat or not, that is far short of a true measure. I want to know are they kind to their children? Their colleagues? Their maids and bus boys - seriously. I want to know if they care about the environment, want to stop the NUKES madness, have an interest in negotiation over domination. Those are the things I want to know. Cheating???? My God. And, yes, Elizabeth is the typical wronged housewife who focuses on the mistress as if she is the problem. The problem is the marriage. I do not live in the 19th Century Puritan mind set and I'm sure not on board with the Taliban's stoning a woman to death when caught cheating. Tina, get over it.
fran1522
Re: fieldjo You need to tell that to Elizabeth not Tina, Tina didn''t write the book.
Persefunny
This is not between Elizabeth and John, a per their choice and inability to zip it. Neither has an ounce of respect for the *little* people since no one could possibly understand the agony or cancer or cheats. They were willing to work together to throw an election. To hell with the two of them.
marymomgret
Elizabeth Edwards is facing death, knowing that her husband will be able to replace her with the other woman. Imagine the torment of knowing that everything she worked for in life, most especially, her children, will be under the influence of a scheming opportunistic hussy and a man who couldn't keep his pants zipped when important matters were at stake. Most likely, john will replace her with the baby moma when she dies.
The problem isn't Elizabeth Edwards. The problem is a culture that expects betrayed women to suffer graciously in silence.
I, personally, admire the way she is fighting back. The book may bring in enough cash to leave her children with trust funds. It may also shame her sleezy husband sufficiently to prevent him from bringing that trash home to replace her.
fran1522
Re: marymomgret,,,,you must not know she doesn't need the money, they are very very wealthy and when I say wealthy I don't mean just a few million.
tomthumb
Well said.
Concordian
Marymongret: That's it! You nailed it. Elizabeth Edwards is trying to stop John from being involved with Rielle Hunter after she, Elizabeth, passes away. The baby is John's, which guarantees that he will continue to have contact with Rielle, but means that her children will want contact too, so that they can be with their half-sister. You can't fault Elizabeth for trying. I hope she succeeds.
Normandy
Marymongret has a clear picture of what the other woman is, and although Elizabeth may fear whatever contact this woman may have with her own children, I doubt she believes this will happen. Even John Edwards has to realize, in hindsight, what a fool he has been and the similarities of this story to "Fatal Attraction". Rielle Hunter is scary and willing to do anything to get what she wants. How sad for Elizabeth, her children, and the illegimate baby born out of immoral acts. Read Sarah Miller's article in the LATimes, it details Rielle Hunter motives a few months before the lurking on the street to meet her "rich and powerful man".
Rescuedog
"It all feels particularly egregious now that we have learned from George Stephanopoulos yesterday that when the inner circle of John Edwards' campaign began to think the rumors of the Hunter affair were true, several of them got together and devised a "doomsday" strategy of sorts to sabotage his campaign and stop him from becoming the Democratic nominee."
Those campaign workers also said they were putting the principle of party loyalty over loyalty to Edwards. But how principled was it to draw a salary from the campaign while deciding whether to destroy it?
Persefunny
Their ultimate responsibility was to the American people who had donated their hard-earned money. They win in this ratty mud-fight.
DustyMills
connie47 & Dorothea, you both felt the need to take a good swipe at Tina, but isn't it true that Ms.Edwards seems to be her own worst enemy? Why the need to first write this book, then go on a media blitz to promote it? Are the Edwards short of money or is this an attempt on Ms. Edwards part to stick it to her scumbag cheating husband? Do you honestly know of any other woman who would want her private affairs, especially a personal battle with cancer and a adulterous husband, to be broadcast world-wide? I don't understand Ms. Edwards motives, but please, don't shoot the messenger.
steff47
Dusty: Matt and Oprah did a job on her, These book junkit are booked long before the book comes out and both Matt and Oprah get advance copys
so they can pick out what parts they want to hit on. The book has many more story but the affair is the one that get more ratings Matt and Oprah took the low road and went with ratings. Mrs Edwards just wanted to get her side of the story out before some one else did and puts their own slant to it
xlntcat
No one did a job on her. This is all her own doing. If she had any desire to get her side of the story out, she did an extremely poor job of same. There was virtually nothing she said that was plausible. Her facial expressions and body language screamed "I am hiding something." She is closed and answered questions that she should have been well prepared to answer as if she had never given any serious thought serious thought to the affair. What kind of answer is "If it is his baby, it has nothing to do with my life." That's inane. She is still living with John Edwards. She is the mother of children who have been and will be emotionally impacted by the family "sludge." If the other woman's child is a half-sibling of her own children, then they will be affected.
If she wasn't credible and somewhat self revealing about her ordeal with cancer, I would think that she lacked the capacity to be self-reflective. I have no idea what she hoped to gain from the book or from the interviews. There is an unrealistic egotism in believing that there isn't a loss of human dignity in assuming that this kind of exposure would not leave a tainted legacy. I find it inexplicable.
fran1522
re: steff47 you are correct
Dorothea
I don't understand Elizabeth Edwards' motives either. However, the messenger was mean-spirited. It seems the wronged wife cannot do anything right except suck it up.
Bulldoglover100
Hey BANJO1.....LOL Where did this tory have to do with the GREAT Job Obama is doing? Were your parents breeding for stupid son or have you just lived in the south to long without the ability to graduate High School? LOL Leave the thinking adults alone to discuss the important matters and go play in the sand box with Bush who took a country without debt and turned it into a crashed economy in 8 years...facts are sooo hard to handle aren't they?
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.