Elizabeth Edwards Says Husband Should Not Have Run

Edwards Says Husband Should Not Have Run

The New York Daily News got an advance copy of Resilience by Elizabeth Edwards who writes that when she learned of her husband's affair, "I cried and screamed, I went to the bathroom and threw up."

"Despite feeling deeply deceived," she "nonetheless publicly stood by her husband's side, lending his candidacy the aura of a warm, loving family life. But she had actually wanted him to quit the race to protect the family."

Later events proved her right. "He should not have run," she says.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/04/30/edwards_says_husband_should_not_have_run.html

That said, hope they're both okay these days.

she was between the proverbial rock and a hard place. I put no blame on her. It was all him.

imho

And on a personal level, it sure would have made more sense for her to take care of herself instead of traveling across the country to enable her husband in his deceit.

They sure were good at the scam though ~ people here at DU gushed at how in love they were!

I'm sure, tho, that at the time Eliz. Edwards felt she had to go thru with it. I wish someone was around to talk to her about the "reality". That they'd end up in worse shape if they tried to cover it up. He should quietly have dropped out of the race and both of them become just private citizens. It is simply mind boggling to me now that he and she put themselves thru such an ordeal AND it was bad for the country. But that is their reality, not mine...

I too was a very ardent John Edwards fan. I loved his 2 America's message, I loved his populism, I loved the fact that he didn't mind being a class warrior, I loved his passion, plus I thought he got rooked from being VP. The family picture painted by John And Elizabeth of enduring love facing all obstacles was inspiring.

I now feel completely and totally duped by both of them. I thank heavens he dropped out when he did. He could have actually delivered us into the hands of the GOP. I'm sorry for Elizabeth, but she shouldn't have participated in such a sham.

I don't care if I ever hear the name John Edwards again.

While she is an excellent writer and I found her chapters on their son's death so sad I had to put the book down for a while, I thought her injecting herself with hormones to get pregnant in her 40s was weird. I am convinced those hormones caused her cancer. I really wonder at her mindset to do such a thing. It was enormously risky.

I'm with you on JE. I couldn't care less about him now and her image to me has been tarnished by her very poor choices...

Never picked it up again. Elizabeth showed her true colors.

Shortly after that she jumped on her moral high horse again and insulted Hillary Clinton for her personal choices. Elizabeth had to call Hillary to apologize. I would not have taken the call but Hillary is a bigger person than I am.

I don't remember it at all...

and as the result that she (Elizabeth) was either in a better/happier marriage or was a happier person.

It was just more of Elizabeth's usual moral high-grounding shtick.

It seemed that Elizabeth was trying pretty desperately to make out as if she had a great life after all and that was so depressing.

Now I feel even worse for Elizabeth. She knows what kind of choices she made and she is so sorry for them. It happens. She's human. I can't help wonderingif she would have been happier marrying somebody else...

you definitely would've been happier with someone else. That's just my experience though.

Between her kids, the Cancer, and being a public figure, it must have been an insane time. I certainly wish they'd handled it differently, but I refuse to judge her for her actions when she must have been blind-sided.

I think they probably once were very much in love.

Otherwise, I cannot see how he could do what he did to a wife suffering from cancer.

still kicked the cheating bastard out.

it doesn't mean that you have the right to dictate what the answer is for other women in that position.

for women who choose to stay with a louse.

What message does that send their daughters? That's it's OK to be a doormat? Or to their son? That's it's OK to break a promise?

On edit: I do cut poor and middle class women a touch of slack on this issue because of financial reasons. It is more difficult to divorce when you have no money; however, Elizabeth doesn't have that problem.

I've never been in the position of having to make that choice, but if my husband were having an affair I would be, since at the moment I'm not working outside the home. And it seems doubly unfair for a woman to not only lose the trust she had in her spouse, and the love and partnership she thought she had, and then on top of that devastation to lose her financial security and home over it too, all because he made a dumbass mistake.

supporting spouse. She was out there as the campaign attack dog - fighting tooth and nail for JRE.

its still enabling his bad behavior. What a disappointment that was. How heartless and selfish of him.

As was her health. Had Elizabeth been in good health, and the children grown, I think she would have kicked him out. As a former Edwards supporter, I was furious, hurt, appalled, and disgusted by his behavior. I still believe he had a valid and important message, but his behavior drew attention away from the populist message that was so important.

Another thing that really, really infuriates me is that he continued to introduce Elizabeth as "the love of my life" - even after he had cheated, and after she knew what he had done. It was cruel beyond belief, and publicly rubbed her face in the deception. Furthermore, it was an affront to the integrity and honesty that many of his supporters believed he exemplified.

I'm just saying.

and Bill never painted himself lily white in 1992.

I'm releieved we don't have a lying serial adulterer sitting in the Oval Office. There's no way that sort of moral bankruptcy
doesn't color other decisions.

John was a fraud.

I also recall him being the only president to be impeached for perjury. That's being an historically official fraud, isn't it?
If anything Edwards is better than Clinton in one respect: he doesn't had a long history of cheating on his wife like Bubba
does.

will cheat again as long as their own private domains aren't disturbed...

I don't get men like Bubba and Edwards, being the faithful sort myself, so what you're saying seems like another bit of anecdotal data
that's probably true for some men. Who really knows? It's not as if men like Bubba or Edwards will tell anyone the truth.

but given the man's ambition, handsomeness and the availability of lots of pretty women I could hazard a pretty good guess that he had dallied before.

And we are making comments on a message board, not writing this for the NY Times. Opinions are often "speculations"...

Edwards has nothing to show for his one senate term of 'Public Service', with the possible exception of being the most enthusiastic Denm advocate of the Iraq war and the his advice on the subject to John Kerry.

Are you saying that an impeached president and serial adulterer like Bubba deserves more of a break than Edwards because
he was in office longer and got to pass brain-fart legislation like DOMA, DADT, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (which
made Rupert Murdoch and led to Faux News), the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (aka. The Financial Modernization Act of 1999,
which led to the present banking mess) while his inept and ham-handed governing attempts -- see the healthcare reform
fiasco -- led to gutting of the Democratic Congress during the 1992 elections, which led to the rise of Tom DeLay and was
a disaster that Democrats only recovered from in 2006?

I think not.

as.

There was a further ramification because his entire platform was far from the only public record he had. People had to trust that the 2008 words were real and that the 1998-2004 actions in the Senate weren't. His entire campaign was based on trusting his words.

In Clinton's case, his platform and words were not out of sync with what he did as Governor. You could agree that he was an awful husband, but in 1992 people thought that was Hillary's problem and still be happy with his plan for the country. (I didn't support Clinton in the primaries because I preferred the politics of others better.) In Edwards' case, it was hard to trust him on his plan in the first place as there were at least 3 Edwards in less than 8 years - the Senator, the slighly less conservative, but still Conservative Democrat from 2004 and the 2008 Edwards.

In addition, the Clinton problems were seen as in the past.

Perhaps you have a "crazy" love "for all things Clinton" that causes you to attack those who do not? :shrug:

You can hardly prove your "crazy" claim because it's a reflection of your thin-skinned CDS (Clinton Denial Syndrome) inability to
acknowledge any criticism of the Clintons in general. I'm glad to see that Edwardians are much less childish in their views after
being faced with unpleasant facts about John and Elizabeth.

It's easy proving you wrong, too: I actually avoided commenting in a thread yesterday where the OP said there was good
reason he/she supported Obama over Hillary in the primary and went on to enumerate why. If I had that "crazy hatred" you
accuse me of, then wouldn't I have been one of the 100+ respondees on that thread? Hmm?

as they deserve. I think they are good people who have sometimes made mistakes. You, however, never a say a positive thing about them. I think yours is more an example of "extreme" thinking.

May I ask why YOU love 'ALL' the Clintons' actions, including those that protected Poppy Bush and his cronies throughout the 90s and led to Bush2?

My guess is that you don't LOVE all things Clinton indiscriminately the same way I don't HATE all things Clinton indiscriminately. However, I can understand why someone in your position needs to hang their hat on those type of smears.

How much ammunition would that be for the GOP? Almost enough, in their minds anyway, to ignore Bush's crimes and talk about him like he was morally upstanding.

Oh wait . . . they do that anyway. Oh well. (Still they might be a bit more persuasive if Obama was up to the same stuff as Edwards).

We all heard of Bill's dalliances. Edwards was a phony, plain and simple.

bill and hillary did the whole out in the open confessional thing during the primary.

-but only Elizabeth was wrong.

bill and hillary went on TV and did the whole confessional thing. they were straight with the voters about his fucking around on Hillary. Edwards swore upside and down that it was all a lie, and Elizabeth stood by his lie. I don't blame her for that, but those are the facts.

in 1992, it was that he had caused "pain in his marriage". A euphemism, to be sure, but it was easily and correctly interpreted as he had had an affair. He also had the advantage that it was years before. The impression left by both Clintons, was that it happened and they had worked to keep their marriage together and it wouldn't happen again.

I remember my mom being disgusted by it and refusing to go with my aunt to Chicago to hear him speak because of it.

She voted for him both times, but still...

He was wrong, she knew it, and went along anyway. If he had been the nominee, we'd be looking at a McCain/Palin administration. Just the thought makes me shudder!!!


Having said all that....I love them both and feel for them. They are wonderful human beings who simply used very poor judgement.

simply because that was what was easier for her. Well I'm sorry when you are dealing with our country it's not about you as a person, it's about something greater than yourself. And yet she and John were willing to be incredibly reckless to the point of damaging our chances to win the White House in 2008. I'm done with both of them. Furthermore, in the excerpts I've read, she seems to put the blame all on Rielle Hunter. As the saying goes: it takes two.

She knew a piece of shit was running and supported him anyway. She did a disservice to voters in doing so. Just because she got screwed over by a piece of shit doesn't mean she should help him screw us over, too.

It should have been all on him. Elizabeth shouldn't have participated in the farce.

in December when he announced in December 2006, it is likely that Elizabeth Edwards did not know until after that point. At that point he was in the race and if he refused to withdraw (and he could have used her health as an excuse that would not have been questioned), your description is perfect.

Especially given her health, she clearly wanted to keep the family intact - leaving him or spilling the beans would lead to what she was trying to avoid. Her husband should have had the wisdom to see the risk she did.

That was her best chance to keep it secret and her family intact.

However, he was running for the Democratic nomination for President and she clearly thought he could win or she wouldn't have agreed to a second run. Running for president puts a gigantic burden on the candidate and his/her family. In their case, he was signaling he would run again even as she was treated for cancer the first time and he was in Iowa even while she was recuperating. What is clear is that she was immensely supportive of his political aspirations. But, as soon as she knew of this extended affair, that would kill his image in the general election, if revealed, she should have stopped campaigning. She wouldn't have had to spill the beans, she could cite her health and children.

But, instead in 2007, Elizabeth Edwards actually functioned as an unassailable "hatchet man" for her husband, attacking both Clinton and Obama. To me, the worst time was when, on the eve of the Iowa caucus, she told an audience very dramatically that Obama's healthcare plan would not cover her because her cancer would be a pre-existing condition. This was part of her prepared remarks, healthcare had become her big issue - this was designed as a last minute way to gain people on the fence because there would be no time for Obama to get out that it was not true. (link to DU thread to remind people that this did happen - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3929807

Elizabeth Edwards did not passively support her husband's run, or support it as a supporting spouse, she was an intregal part of the effort and even allowed them (or engineered it herself) to use her as the attack dog, knowing that anyone would have difficulty fighting back.

:sarcasm:

I don't blame her, but women should stop coddling cheating spouses (our Secretary of State included).

He is the only one who screwed up. But to use the military phrase, she stood by her post, as she agreed to do when they got married.

So the fault truly is all his.

She screwed up when she agreed to scam the American voter. I don't care about what happens in people's marriages, but this was a betrayal of public trust. He couldn't have pulled it off without her.

If you took an oath to stand by your spouse, but he/she does something really screwed up, does that release you from your oath?

I guess we all run the risk of having to make that decision. Better her than me.

where something like this hurts only those living their private lives. But both Edwardses were public figures whose jointly conducted deception could have brought down the Democratic Party in the most critical presidential election of a lifetime and left the country at the mercy of the Republicans. If she had stayed home and tended to her private life, there would be no issue of responsibility for her, at least, but she didn't.

does her oath mean she should not go the police? The answer shows that taken to the extreme this isn't true.

Not to mention that John broke his oath, taken at the same moment, in a very major way. She says that she didn't want them to run and instead to protect the family, what was HIS responsibility to her?

a good principle. If I think something wrong, I should NOT do it.

Sticking around "for better" is easy. Its the "for worse" part that creates the problem.

How much do you stick around for? I dunno. Not serial murder, obviously. But that principle, which you say is not good at the extremes, is what a marriage is all about.

It is NOT just the woman who has to stand with her husband. Decisions as major as this MUST be joint. EE had many reasons to not want a run - clearly this the main one, but there also was her health and the fact that the kids lives were already interrupted once traveling the country with their parents in 2003 and 2004.

that.

He was running for the Democratic nomination for President and she clearly thought he could win the nomination or she wouldn't have agreed to a second run. Running for president puts a gigantic burden on the candidate and his/her family. In their case, he was signaling he would run again even as she was treated for cancer the first time and he was in Iowa even while she was recuperating. What is clear is that she was immensely supportive of his political aspirations. But, as soon as she knew of this extended affair, that would kill his image in the general election, if revealed, she should have stopped campaigning. She wouldn't have had to spill the beans, she could cite her health and children.

But, instead in 2007, Elizabeth Edwards actually functioned as an unassailable "hatchet man" for her husband, attacking both Clinton and Obama. To me, the worst time was when, on the eve of the Iowa caucus, she told an audience very dramatically that Obama's healthcare plan would not cover her because her cancer would be a pre-existing condition. This was part of her prepared remarks, healthcare had become her big issue - this was designed as a last minute way to gain people on the fence because there would be no time for Obama to get out that it was not true. (link to DU thread to remind people that this did happen - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3929807

Elizabeth Edwards did not passively support her husband's run, or support it as a supporting spouse, she was an intregal part of the effort and even allowed them (or engineered it herself) to use her as the attack dog, knowing that anyone would have difficulty fighting back.

If she had come out in public, she faced a 100% probability of having people rummage through her family's life, rather than a 50% chance that people would find out if she didn't say anything.

I'm not saying that it was the right thing to do, but I understand it.

of the race quietly. He wasn't raising the money he needed to raise anyway, so dropping out would have been inevitable. After a while the press would probably not be as eager to "get" him but even if they did, at that point they could just say they had "put it behind us" and the whole thing would be ended with a lot less pain.

He was getting nowhere fast the whole time he stayed in the race with this hanging over his head.

Knowing that she earlier didn't want him to run to protect the family and knowing she stayed with him after the entire thing came out because of the combination of her health and the need for her kids to have a dad, it is beyond comprehension that he stayed in when it was learned that she had terminal cancer.

Dealing with both the emotional and physical stresses of that would be tough even in an otherwise pressure free supportive environment would be daunting - doing so questioning the truth of your marriage would be worse - doing it with that AND running an Presidential campaign is unthinkable.

To me, this says that either EE wanted the run as well as JRE, in spite of everything, or he is an incredibly self centered excuse for a human. (I actually think the former more likely because I doubt she would have agreed to being the attack dog if she actually didn't even want to run.)

and I don't find Elizabeth blameless in this.

But 1940s marriages were quite different from 1990s and 2000s marriages. My grandma told me that her mother told her not to divorce my grandpa although he was a cheat because he paid the bills and was a good father (meaning he paid the bills).

In addition to the private culture of silence of earlier eras. But post-Clinton, after that media hoopla and now with the Internet, nobody in their right mind would believe they could pull something off as the Edwardses apparently thought they could.

He lost the nomination on his own fair and square. If she had left him and he lost, it would have been seen by many as being her fault. Her selfishness.

You think he would've been able to hide his medical condition AND his extramarital affairs?

The only reason Clinton won in 1992 is because Poppy Bush needed to lose (BCCI report was coming out in Dec1992 and Bush/cronies would be fully exposed in impeachment hearings). Bill wouldn't have gotten through that election if GHWBush used all the dirt they had on Clinton in a 24/7 media press.

malleable moral perspectives. :(

You not only deceived Elizabeth, you also deceived everyone you continued to take donations from. Some worked very hard for you, and you let us down. I want my money back, it was not taken in good faith.

and not just RePug lies....it hit me like a brick. I, too, wanted to throw up.
It was akin to finding out your spouse/S.O. is out whoring around behind your back.

That it would never come out given the MSM and the popularity of his wife. What kind of ego would allow a person to be so clueless as to run for President a second time...and use his family while whoring with another woman. Not only that, he used trusted aides to cover up for him and possibly pay money to keep her quiet while providing his mistress a large home in California...and now one in NC (according to the "Raleigh News & Observer" investigation.

John Edwards should not have cheated on his wife.

Edwards put the Democratic Party, and the nation at risk. John is not stupid, he's an egomaniac. The very future of the United States was at stake in 2008. He was prepared to roll the dice for the sake of his overwhelming ambition.

For me, anyway. I don't trust anyone who is treacherous in the private arena to be trustworthy in the public, and vice versa.

I think he DID a great deal of damage to the Democratic Party and to the nation. He listened. He changed his message, if not himself, and he came out with the progressive left-of-center message that so many, myself included, wanted to hear. While I always preferred DK, Edwards would have had my vote after DK dropped, if he'd still been in the race.

He didn't just discredit himself; he discredited the message, and we got stuck with a damned centrist.

That, in my opinion, is as damaging to the party and nation as the affair was to his family.

but, Edwards doing this had nothing to do with Obama winning. Had Edwards not run, it might have evolved to just an Obama/Clinton match earlier - and she is even more a centrist. Edwards never polled more than 15% and even if all that 15% (Edwards highest) went to Kuchinich - which would not happen as he was not the second choice of the majority, the winner would still likely have been Obama, or perhaps HRC as any change could have had unpredictable results.

How could you trust Edwards to be a progressive after he voted for the 2001 bankruptcy bill. (You can't excuse him because he was a very junior Senator - EE's specialty was bankruptcy law.

I don't agree that "she is even more of a centrist," and that really surprised me at the time.

I didn't trust Edwards at all; I just figured it would be easier to hold him accountable when he at least said some of the right things, than it is to hold someone who campaigned as a centrist accountable for things he (or she) never promised at all.

It's certainly all water under the bridge at this point. I don't need to revisit the primary debacle. I'll just repeat my point:

Morality IS a critical point for me.

with a superb Democratic president...

by a LOT.

he had anything approaching power. He only pretended to be a liberal in 2008, because Hillary already had the "centrist" vote locked up, and Obama had the "outsider" mythos monopolized.

It certainly fits his previous record.

I just figured that a candidate that at least said some of the right things could be held more accountable than a candidate campaigning as center and/or center-right.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

record than Obama. That so many so called progressives couldn't see what was plain as the nose on your face, is beyond pitiful. That lying pos was a corporate fuckwad from the word go. Pathetic you didn't pay attention to what he did and not to his obviously phony rhetoric.

You rush to attack without understanding, or acknowledgment, of the point of the conversation.

Attack Edwards all you like. I certainly wasn't defending him.

I simply commented on some of the more long-term negative consequences of his infidelity.

what you brought up.

Edwards put his family at risk and then he and she went on to put the country at risk.

And, Elizabeth admits it.

today. I think that Hillary would have gotten most of the votes that went to Edwards in the Iowa Caucuses, and that she would have won those caucuses. From there, winning in New Hampshire like she did, it would have been off to the races.

I'm glad Edwards ran. I think that Hillary is in her niche right now as SOS. She is perfect for that job. And, she seems very happy in it.

she didn't wear well in Iowa.

Check the WaPo archives from that period for all their extremely detailed polling data on this specific issue of second choice votes
if you don't believe me.

Which, of course, didn't stop her from bellyaching that caucuses weren't being sensitive to her needs (coronation).

It confirms the cardinal rule of political science, that negatives are much more difficult to move than positives. Hillary basically peaked in October 07. The next 10 months she was unable to gain a single point. While she started with high positives she also started with high negatives.

Basic Voting analysis consistently shows that a candidate who has 40% negatives is unlikely to win because the 40% negative is a much more firmly held opinion than the 40% positive. It is easy to turn the positive into a negative but very difficult to turn the negative into a positive. From that fact it made it very difficult for Senator Clinton to win against any field of reasonably viable candidates, despite what appeared to be a huge starting advantage.

but that woman, by choice, acted as a prop in John's hypocritical posturing against GLBT rights. He stood there, with her at his lying side, and went on in detail about his 'Baptist roots' and his deep devotion to 'traditional marriage', said he's just raised so faithful that he can not bear to think of GLBT people sharing in what to him is a Sacrament and a Divine Union. All of that he said while both of them knew the truth.
He did not have to paint himself as a saint using others as examples of sin, while he was doing the adultery tango. She did not have to stand there and nod in agreement that he was so holy and Gays are so horrid. Fuck them both, their millions, and their God damned arrogant bigotry toward gay families, families with much more love and respect than these two fakers ever had. A sham 'marriage'.
John and Elizabeth should read out loud on TV what their Jesus said about adulterous people like John. And they should then admit that their Jesus said not one word against gay people. The use of the divine and of slanders to distract from their own decay, the rot of their own marriage, was dispicable, and neither of them have bothered to apologize for that arrogant and utterly mendacious attack on Gay families.

to be fairly nasty attack dog for Edwards. To me, the worst time was when, on the eve of the Iowa caucus, she told an audience very dramatically that Obama's healthcare plan would not cover her because her cancer would be a pre-existing condition. This was part of her prepared remarks, healthcare had become her big issue - this was designed as a last minute way to gain people on the fence because there would be no time for Obama to get out that it was not true. (link to DU thread to remind people that this did happen - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3929807

I wasn't a Clinton supporter in the primaries and this did not have the seriousness of health care, but what a crock this was, too.

thing, but couldn't remember the timing. So, I gave her the benefit of the doubt that it was before she knew.

(even then I had a problem, as it was also about not working when the kids were little - though she had worked when the two older kids were young. Not to mention, running a Senate race and 2 Presidential runs during their young lives is not most people's idea of a stay at home mom.

Her story that Teresa, speaking of doctors - not knowing that EE had already chosen a team, said that the one EE had settled on was not one that would be recommended shows nothing bad about Teresa. What EE does not mention is that Teresa through one of the Heinz foundations hosts two annual conferences - in Pittsburgh and Boston - on women's health, toxins and cancer. Her foundation also funds a chair at a Pittsburgh college and research on these topics. As Teresa had the ability to get information few could, it would be surprising if she didn't. It said more that EE didn't immediately tell Teresa that she had picked a team.

The other stories that she went crazy with anxiety that her (multimillion dollar) house would not be good enough for the Kerrys showed more about her, than Teresa. That chapter was pathetic and detailed buying and returning super expensive towels.

I scanned the book after people hear spoke of her attacking Teresa. It just seemed to me that EE was insecure about herself. Her comments about John Kerry showed him to be kind and considerate. Now, I may have missed some comments.

Where she was worse was in her interview where she and JRE were normal average folks and the Kerrys super elite. (this in spite of the fact that they were two lawyers earning at least an upper middle class combined income almost from the time they graduated law school. That was clearly said to both label the Kerrys out of touch elitists and the Edwards as regular folks. The Kerrys showed amazing class returning none of this.

I forgot that, too. So much going on then and since.

She called Hillary to apologize for her comments.

:(

him publicly.

It is very hypocritical, and they should take the beams from out their eyes.

Well said I couldn't agree more!

Edwards being Hoines of course, Santos = Obama, and Hillary = VP Russel. All this minus a floor fight, but still, very similar.

Season 6 of the West Wing.....and you're right, many similarities.

so I think that allows me an opinion. I supported John Edwards to the point of traveling outside my state on more than a few occasions and I was even in Iowa for caucus. Now, I have to ask myself, did I support a man? Did I support a candidate? Or was it the issues he professed to represent? For me, in the final analysis, it must be the issues, and they are issues no national elected official or politician is talking about today. Poverty. In essence, his stupid move with his dick, costs us, the poor, any national platform we could have had. JRE for HHS? Forget about it. JRE for AG? No fucking way, that idiot thinks with his dick.

One thing that John did that I believe he gets little credit for, splitting the Iowa vote with HRC, to help give President Obama the win, catapulting him to true national prominence. That's what I'm grateful to John Edwards for. That, and the great people I met along the way.

Every single one of those people, especially including Elizabeth Edwards, deserved far, far better.

Most Iowa people would have gone to Obama, not HRC

There are other people who actually have records working on poverty. Edwards didn't - he voted for the bankruptcy bill. The most prominent is President Obama, who worked as a community organizer before going into politics and who has many pieces of his stimulus bbil and budget designed to help those in need.

Look at the list of Democratic Senators, for most of them you can find something they did that dealt with the poor. Ted Kennedy has worked on these things for 40 years. John Kerry has fought to get funding for "Youthbuild" for a couple of decades - this year he and Michelle Obama spoke at their event, Sherrod Brown is a real populist with a long time record to match. You can go down the list. Almost all have done at least as much as Edwards - as that is not a high bar.

What is true is that Edwards did have the ability to speak about these issues in a way that made them new and compelling to you and many others. The thing is that they were NOT new ideas - they were old when Mario Cuomo used the same theme very eloquently as a speaker at a Democratic convention. The important thing is that you found someone whose words echoed your values. The good news is that, though others may not say it in the way that reaches you as JRE did, those are old time core values of the liberal/left side of the Democratic party.

I always thought he came off as a bit too slick and fake for my tastes and his not getting along with Kerry after the election in 2004 never sat well with me. She made a mistake continuing to support him for the election and presenting an untrue version of him. However, the woman had cancer on top of her husband cheating on her AND impregnating another woman. I think the campaign was all she had left to hang onto at the time so she poured herself into it. I have been in a similar situation and its way too easy to say she should have done this or that.

Or a TV laywer.

he turned out to be.

I knew he was a fraud and an asshole throughout '08, despite liking his policies--the simple fact that every one of his policy positions in '08 was a reversal from '04 or his Senate days was enough to make me think he was a worthless scumbag. And, whaddya know, he ended up being a worthless scumbag. I'm glad he didn't get anywhere near winning.

Lies to his wife, lies to the people.... we (most of us anyway) rallied around him.

I found the difference to be strange.

It's a matter of degrees, I admit. With Clinton, there were a few things that were different:

Clinton basically acknowledged that he had cheated on Hillary during his '92 campaign. I think the American people - and most Democrats - are forgiving if there's some honesty. With Edwards, the issue was that he blatantly lied about this throughout the campaign. And although in a perfect world, this stuff would remain private, in the world we live in, these kinds of things do get out - he had to have known that had this gotten out and had he been caught lying, it would have wrecked Democratic chances in November had he been the nominee.

Now, it's true that Clinton lied about the Lewinsky affair. However, Clinton got a little slack because he was already president. You may argue that this is an arbitrary distinction, but I would say that it matters. The bar for removal of a president is high, and Clinton could point to a substantial legacy. By contrast, what did Edwards have? He was a one-term, former senator with no major legislative accomplishments and a flip-flopping record.

And I think part of the problem with Edwards was merely the shock of it - again, with Clinton, people knew he was kind of a cad. With Edwards, the affair came out of the blue, seemingly. This doesn't make what Bill did any better, but it again goes back to the honesty thing - Edwards had been selling himself and his family as something he was not. And doing it in the middle of a presidential campaign.

... and, by extension, our country.

For that, I'm still pissed at the BOTH of them. Him for being a SHIT, her for not wacking him the head with a frying pan and saying, "You're not running -- you've screwed your family over, and you're not doing it to the Democratic party or the country."

That said, I pray she's feeling OK, for the sake of her, and their kids. I still really like Elizabeth. John, you can have.

The thread is about Edwards' infidelity, but it of course has to become a referendum on the Clintons' marriage.

I had enough, some of you just make me sick..........

:puke:

and our nation in the long run.

That Bill was a womanizer DID come to hurt this nation and especially our party and the 'perception' of our party for some years. Why would you be dismayed that something so APPARENTLY damaging to our party politically was being discussed?

You think Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, or Bill Clinton would have any chance at becoming President if they were the Dem nominee under today's corpmedia rules reserved for Dems?

against John Edwards here at DU. YOu see, if the Adultery thing wouldn't have gotten to him, the Hedge Fund situation would have. I warned folks that he was phonier than a 2 dollar bill, but most wouldn't believe me, because he was saying the things they were dying to hear. That said, I actually liked Elizabeth Edwards, and I still do. The fact that her husband literally forced her to stand by his side makes him just that more sickening to me. I understand why she did it, and I think many, many wives do. Just too bad he cared about himself more than he cared about her or this nation.

the psychology books. It was bound to come out and then all would have been lost if he had gotten the nom.

I was lookin' at Edwards but I see from my donation records that I gave to the Obama campaign right before Iowa. Whew!

My first thought was for Elizabeth who experienced very public hurt and humiliation at a time when she was particularly vulnerable. I wish her the best.

it took a lot of gall to go out and seek the nomination.

Or we'd be saying hello to Pres. John McCain.

:eyes:

#1 - Elizabeth is right because there is no way JRE wins once this comes out and it was GOING to come out.
#2 - I maintain that this has nothing to do with someone's job. It may be correct in saying that this would have destroyed his chances of being elected, but that does not mean I think that is right. I dont think adulterers should be fired, demoted, or not promoted because of adultery. The one exception being if they are clergy.
#3 - None of this means that John or Elizabeth are somehow lepers as far as I am concerned. If perception changed and a JRE candidacy for an office was viable, I'd support him.
#4 - I'm also not interested in attacking Elizabeth (or anyone else) for deciding to stay in a marriage with someone who has cheated or made one or more other mistakes, nor would I attack or judge them for deciding to leave. I think that decision is for the people in the marriage and isnt up to other people. The slight exception is if there is physical abuse in the family. Even then, the point is not to judge people who stay, its to intervene to stop the abuse.

Their biggest problem right now is their home - it is a massive white elephant.

Relationships ofter linger because of the real estate.

Who gives a flying fig what people do in their marriage??????? It's NONE of anybody else's business!!! I didn't care with Bill and I certainly don't care with Edwards. As long as everyone is a consenting adult.

I also wish all the sanctimonious asses would look in the mirror and worry about their own relationships before standing in judgment of anyone else's life. Who the hell do some of you think you are to disparage Hillary, Elizabeth or any other woman who chose to stay and not leave their spouse???????

I'm a feminist, and by that I mean that I believe that a woman should be free to make her own choices. A cheated woman wants to leave her mate? Fine with me. Another woman chooses to stay and work on her marriage? Fine with me too.

x(

and our chance to win the White House. Had he been our nominee we would have been screwed and we'd be looking at a McCain-Palin disaster. So in so much as their martial situation impacts or could have impacted our chances at the WH: I care. And they put themselves before their party and before their country. I wrote him off long ago and I hate to say this, and while I wish her well personally in her battle with cancer, I no longer am able to admire her.

knowing full well that his affair could be discovered before the election. I also didn't appreciate his hypocritical finger wagging at Clinton for his indiscretions.

Elizabeth angered me too during the primaries when she made a statement that her life choices had made her more happy than Hillary. That comment was presumptuous, no one can make that kind of judgment of someone else's life. Particularly someone who they new superficially, the Edwards and Clintons were not close friends.

Having said that, it's none of my business how they handle their marriage.

everyone's business now. EE just put it on the table by writing about it in a freakin' book. people discuss the contents of books.

be 100% true. If this was just their marriage and not the future of our country potentially in their hands then it wouldn't be anybody else's business.

If you have to lie to do something then it probably isn't what you should be doing. He shouldn't have been lying to her but she shouldn't have lied to us either.

Remember how he joined a hedgefund -- to "learn about poverty?" :rofl:

I miss the Primary Wars. :shrug:

For old time's sake ---



(How could one sleep in a place like that with all that clearcutting? I'd be half expecting the ents to come down off the hillside to extract their revenge in the middle of the night...)

someone willing to throw away that kind of cash just on the heating bill alone doesnt know shit about poverty. Nor do they care. Just the utilities on that place could suport several families.

I had forgotten just how much I despised these two frauds till I saw that picture again.

Nor am I going to put down a stompy foot and say, SHE SHOULD HAVE LEFT HIM OR I CAN'T RESPECT HER.

I know of a lot of marriages that have survived infidelity. (From either the husband or the wife or maybe even both). It's not an automatic deal-breaker for everyone, and no one has the right to say whether or not it should be in someone ELSE'S marriage. I'm not going to dis Hillary for not leaving Bill and I'm not going to dis Elizabeth for not leaving John. It's the wronged party's choice to make, not some random observer's. I am not going to pillory her for being willing to take risks to save her marriage. She knows her own heart and her own reasons; I don't.

However, I think John Edwards is a dirtbag. I came kind of close to voting for him in the primary because I was kind of swayed by his populist rhetoric. Thank the GODS I didn't. I think he is a delusional narcissist who thought he could somehow get away with this, and thank the GODS he was a distant third in most of the primaries, or else he could have almost singlehandedly inflicted another 4 years of batshit Repuke fascism on this country, and that would have been the end of ALL of us.

But when you want to get the real measure of a man, watch closely how he treats those he **thinks** are beneath him, those he takes for granted and doesn't feel he has to "charm" anymore. Waitstaff. Children. Animals. And, worst of all, the woman he's been with for decades--who is now perhaps a little pudgy and matronly, who is familiar enough to breed contempt, who no longer gives him "the thrill of the chase," who might even, gods forbid, be dealing with a serious illness. As he treats her, that's how he'll treat all of us once he's already got our votes.

(I actually feel kind of bad for his mistress too. Lord knows what lies he told HER.)

I find it sadly ironic that so many Americans, including liberal Democrats, fail to appreciate the time and effort Elizabeth Edwards has given to make this nation more fair and equitable. This is particularly true regarding her advocacy on behalf of universal health care. As to the former senator's conduct; to err is human, to forgive divine.

toward Elizabeth. I see no reason for me to forgive or not forgive JE. That's not my bailiwick. It's Elizabeth's.

do we really need to go through this?

haven't these two done enough damage? was risking that the country would be stuck with another wingnut administration not enough for them?

can't they just retire to their hedge fund money and mansion, enjoy themselves and leave us all alone?

Coming in the thick of a federal investigation into the finances of the affair, coverage of which will only intensify public scrutiny of the scandal. It boggles the mind. I really don't know what they think they're doing here.

polls showed that most of JE's voters would have gone for Obama in Iowa.