What a moron! I never thought Andrew Young an attractive character in the first place, but reading

that, he comes out as a moron. Seriously? Boston Market better than what was cooked by a professional cook?

http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/books/2082508,CST-FTR-book04.article

I'm quite sure that Young is spinning this like a top. It may be customary for politicians or VIP's to make requests at hotels, but it doesn't make any sense that they would do so at someone's personal home, and I think observation shows that the Kerrys have much better manners in general than the Edwardses.

That must have been a really bad chief he hired.

As for Young, the fact he does not seem to get how sleezy his behavior is (particularly accepting to say he was the father of Rielle Hunter's child to protect Edwards) is enough for me to dismiss anything he says.

(A great piece about the Sanford from later in the article. What another moron. Ask for a separation for a week so he could see his mistress without cheating on his wife??

LOL! Pretty much says it all.

Even though I'm not fond of either Edwards, I've found the tone and substance of both Game Change and The Politician highly suspect from the get-go. Strikes me that Young is an extreme opportunist and heedless gossip who will say anything to paint himself in the best light and everyone around him in the worst. I don't doubt that there are minute grains of truth in his book and Game Change, but I sense that they are embedded in a large cake of BS.

... to find that "The Politician" had slipped to #4 on the NYT bestseller list. Behind Ozzy Osbourne's book.

I am Ozzy's biggest fan right now. GO OZZY! GO OZZY! :yourock:

Duhhhhh... because it's got "Boston" in the title? :dunce:

Just like "the name Quinn was the Latin prefix for five and a silent proclamation of paternity", this is just too cutesy and cheesy. Way too "crafted to make a good story" to be believable.

It would be like saying, if JK were from Colorado, that he hated the beer that he, Young, had specially picked out for him; and the ungrateful putz wanted some... COORS!!!! :eyes: Because hey, Coors is from Colorado, duh! :eyes:

When anyone in their right mind knows that JK would much rather have a Wynkoop Sagebrush Stout. Because it's the most similar to Guinness, his favorite beer.

the Kerrys for the entire campaign trail. I would assume that had the Edwards asked their chef to put together a healthy menu, it could have been approved if needed. What is strange is that they would do what was suggested which was to cook individual meals for every one. Think of how awkward and uncomfortable that would be. The Kerrys walk in and are asked what do you want for dinner, our chef could make ... Now, that is so weird that I can see why the Kerrys would signal to their staff to get them a room.

(Now imagine they took the list, prepared some nice steamed vegetables, a salad, roast chicken, and salmon with chocolate cake for desert. An excellent meal for everyone. Set the dinning room table with whatever china they have and a nice vase of flowers.)

Not to mention, get the house cleaned. I am not a meticulous homemaker, but the main areas of the house are cleaned before I have guests. Remember this was a multimillion dollar home - though Young makes it seems like it was the home JRE lived in when he was young.

(as JK was at that time) Must be more so than I think. I really wouldn't know, other than a general tendeny to vomit and possible food-drug interactions.

Imagine if JK had had a real dietary restriction, like gluten intolerance or peanut allergy. Talk about awkward.

Oh, and Boston Market is a real snobby place to eat too.:crazy: I have never heard of anyone sending ahead of a visit a menu of what they will eat and drink and what they won't when they are visiting a private home. This whole tale seems to have been concocted to make the Kerry's look bad. I wonder if there is resentment on Young's part because Senator Kerry did not endorse Edward's for president in 2008.
Oh, and from this account by Young it appears the Edwards' are not very clean or neat.

Reading this made me feel that I was really really posh - I have eaten in many Boston Markets and I have bought and drank Kendal Jackson wine. (here it is on-line - $11 http://www.kj.com/wines/vintners-reserve/sauvignonblanc.aspx )

What I suspect was that that Kerry visit was uncomfortable. It was clear in EE's book that she was a nervous wreck about it for weeks. (So, I suspect she did have the house cleaned.) If his description is remotely true, they took the campaign preferences memo and created the least hospitable occasion that I could ever imagine. It is simply not normal to treat the Kerrys as they were treated here - with a chef standing by to make whatever they want. I completely understand why Kerry simply sent out Marvin. Can you imagine arriving at a home where you were expected and being asked what they could cook just for you?

visited someone's home and gotten a good old fashioned home cooked meal. That's better than a restaurant or personal chef most of the time.

:eyes:

I agree with what you guys have already said about it on here. Just feels like yet another extension of "the Kerrys are rich, 'elitist snobs'" meme from 2004. It's so tired and rings so false, especially as there is so much else out there that would seem to debunk it, from people who have actually met and have spent time with and/or know them personally and don't have a book on the market, with an apparent axe to grind..

And you make a good point--maybe he sent out Marvin to get the food because he didn't want the Edwards' to have to go to all that trouble with a hired chef? Which would indicate the exact opposite of snobbery, especially seeing as he would be paying for the Boston Market food himself (or having his campaign underwrite it, which would still relieve the Edwards' of the personal expense of the hired chef, who probably went for MUCH more $$$ than the Boston Market items.).

as rich snobs.

I would certainly never want to be a 'snob', but man, I sure wish the 'rich' part were true, especially seeing as I just graduated college and am now in between that and grad school, with student loans still to pay (and more still likely to be taken out). Being a 'rich snob' (well, at least the rich part), would sure come in handy right about now! haha :)

Hate to say it, but I think Edwards is the one who comes off as the 'rich snob' here.

They feared the Kerry's would not think them "good enough" because the Kerrys were far richer - but the likelihood is the majority of the Kerrys' real friends are likely less wealthy than the Edwards. It likely never occurred to them, that things like character and integrity meant more.

What is truly odd in his account is that it could make you come back to the Edwards having the bus stop at Wendys - something they made into as a great a virtue as Bush did with clearing brush. Wendys, Boston Market - not all that different, except Boston Market has better food.

The Kerrys had big enough hearts they would have enjoyed them and been friends with them anyway.

Actually, I think JRE's best friend in the Senate was Evan Bayh. I think they even shared a love of running. He really didn't work with JK all that much, so it's a bit of a stretch to say "he ought to know me from the Senate".

Too bad. He should have worked with JK more. It would have made him a better, smarter progressive.

Several things are weird in this. In Elizabeth Edwards' book, she obsessed with redecorating her daughters room for pages. This is a family that was worth something llke $27 million (minimum). The idea that they did not get someone to clean the place is insulting to them.

The list of food is completely familiar - it is essentially the Kerry list that was put out years ago - as guidance to what he would want. It was clearly designed to be very standard food, that Marvin could get in any town. There is absolutely nothing snobbish with chicken, pot roast, or meat loaf - or even salmon. Kerry was on a strict diet for medical reasons. The wine is relatively inexpensive - I think less than $15. If the story was even true, Kerry solved the problem pretty easily by sending Marvin to the ultra posh elitist Boston Market. (I would suspect that the hired chef might have really made either pot roast or meat loaf and they were greasy.)

Reading the book, knowing that Young was an adoring, unquestioning Edwards person at that time, it is easy to see he saw what he wanted to see. Here are annoying things I remember:

1) Speaking of the primaries, he spoke of the Edwards campaign being caught checking a web site(Drudge?) when the intern story came out several hundred times from the headquarters. He speaks of their excitement that Kerry could implode. He then makes a nasty crack that it ended when the woman denied it - but you never know if things like that are true. Now, given his own experience at how it really can't easily be hid and knowing that Edwards was given the benefit of the doubt by the media - when Kerry really wasn't - this is disgusting. The woman's long New York magazine account told what she experienced. Not to mention, in Shrum's book, Kerry not only denied it, but worried about the woman he did not have an affair with.

2) After losing and having pandered to be VP as everyone saw in the last debate, the Edwards were angry when they went back to NC. Edwards was upset that Kerry won, because he was "not very smart, just someone who had read the NYT every day for 20 years - with no problem solving ability or creativity. (!! though there are many examples of both for Kerry and really none for john boy - in fact, as example is what led to Kerry's silver star - so staffers can't be credited.)

3) After meeting with them the first time for a VP nomination, Edwards spoke of both Kerrys as A**holes - seemingly because they questioned him and Elizabeth. For the second interview, Edwards was in Disney World with the family and he wanted Kerry to send a jet - he was told to get a seat on a commercial plane. This did not make the real elitist happy - but after the Kerry team refused to budge, he worked out transportation. He was furious that Kerry wanted to see him because "he knows me from the Senate".

4) He gives a different view of the Hope (Help) is on the way slogan difference. He claims Edwards refused to use Help is on the way in his convention speech because "hope" means people create their way out, while "help" is a handout. Speaking of not smart, if true, Edwards is not smart. Help is far more immediate and it is what people needed. Hope is fine, but not combined with "is on the way" - which is meaningless. They were apparently angry that {i]Kerry continues to use his Help slogan. (this is written as the political genius JRE was still at one primary win in 2 years (NC was a caucus after JK had the nomination and it was a favorite son win).

5) He repeats the nonsense that the campaign put him in out of the way places - like small towns in Ohio and Pennsylvania instead of sending him to win the South. They also blame them for not advertising big in NC.

6) He also repeats the lie that JK left $14 million that he could have spent in the bank. Well, that was primary money and if JK had oked spending it in the ge, it would have been a violation of campaign finance laws - and I am sure the Republicans would have noticed as soon as they saw the ad buys.

7) He speaks of Edwards gloating that Kerry asked him about whether he would run against him if they lost, but he answered in a way that he thought Kerry would interpret as "no", but it gave him an out. (I suspect Kerry's motivation was to assess if Edwards was simply wanting to use the position as a stepping stone - which was indeed the case.)

8) Elizabeth Edwards was upset that in her interview with Teresa, when she was asked what she wanted to work on and said education, Teresa spoke of some of the work her foundation had done there. EE apparently defensively took it as one upmanship, but it would have been strange had Teresa not mentioned it - hoping to get a real conversation on a serious issue. The reaction of both Edwards seemed to really be that they were far superior and they resented the Kerry's far greater wealth (weird to me, as $27 million should be enough for almost anything they want,) and even more the fact that Kerry, not Edwards was the nominee.

8. Speaking of the day at the Edwards, he speaks of the Lesley Stahl interview. He mentions that Lesley Stahl spoke of the rally where Teresa after Johnny be good was placed, spoke of how she and Elizabeth would make sure they were - he then attributes to Elizabeth, Teresa's comments in the Stahl interview of how the wife needs to keep them true to themselves and to tamp down the ego when needed or build it up when they are attacked. ( The funny thing was that I found that interview in one of the links on the Time magazine article on EE's book tour and posted it often including when the Young stuff acme out.) In addition to giving the wonderful comments to EE, he saw no irony in the fact that EE was enabler when JRE's ego was out of control. As to Teresa that day, he speaks only of her having a glass of win and walking up and down the stairs.

9. He spoke after the election of drinking one day with Edwards and having Edwards tell him teh same story he told Kerry. He then attempts to claim more empathy for himself, saying that, unlike Kerry, he did not begrudge Edwards hie story of tragedy. Missing the point that it was telling him he never told anyone before when he had to Kerry, who had never been a close friend. (But he did understand why Edwards did it - to create a bond - but he had no problems with it being both maudlin and not genuine.)

10> I forgot, speaking of Iowa, he argues that with another week or two Edwards would have won. This is completely unlikely. What happened in the last couple of weeks were two very steep curves in terms of voters gained for both Edwards and Kerry. What he (and Elizabeth Edwards do is project their curve out assuming the same rate of growth. This ignores that if you do this for all campaigns, you get over 100% if you go far enough in time. The fact is that Kerry was not losing the people he won over. Dean and Gephardt did lose some of their support, but the big thing is that the undecided disappeared. He then speaks of Kerry and Dean having an advantage in NH, but ignores that Edwards was born in SC and the other states in that first multi state day were DE, MO, NM, AZ, OK, and ND - states that should have favored Edwards.

(The plane arrived before I read any more.)

The fact is that Edwards, even in the 2004 parts comes across as an arrogant, obnoxious, narcissistic, egotist man, with no depth or character. I don't think anything he said hurts Kerry - first because Young has no credibility - but also because the things that Kerry did that angered Edwards were entirely what he should have done. It was his responsibility to interview the creep.

Who knows how much any of this crap is true. I suppose everyone has their own version of "truth". I don't think the Kerrys are snobs. But I do think something in that house made them uncomfortable and it wasn't the alleged "dirt".

Kendell Jackson? Ye Gods, I know some wine snobs who would be appalled by such a choice. Ha!

Boston Market has good food for a take out place, but it is very none snobbish - there likely are many gourmet take out food places in the area. I would bet that Edwards attitude showed through and they stayed long enough to not make the rift obvious. It is really amazing that none of this ever came out through the Kerry people - just a very few corrections of his lies. There was the glaring statistic that not one of the Kerry money people or strategists went to Edwards.

I remember you posting long ago that picking Edwards was likely the mistake that Kerry said was made, but which he would not speak of.

but he controls how much he eats of that for health reasons and of course Teresa makes sure of it.

there is nothing elitist about Kerry. he might be part of the elite in that he is well off. but he certainly doesn't have that attitude and knows he has been privileged and none of it is because he is better than anyone else.

unlike the Edwards' who made some nasty comments about the neighbors in the area they were building that huge ugly ass house.

i remember during 2004 primary when Kerry talked about bringing religious leaders together and mentioned some leaders including the pope and dalai lama and Edwards laughed at the mention of the Dalai lama. i mean wtf ? does Edwards not consider the non abrahamic ones to be on the level as the others ?

and his idiot supporters will go on about how it was about the message. yet they continue to attack Obama as giving a nice speech.

reading all this makes me so angry.

JK's favorite meal from which, it's been documented, is a Whopper and fries--hardly fancy food of any sort. And it IS, I'm sorry, crap--I always feel so sick after I eat stuff from there, which is why I hardly ever do anymore, lol.

And is it's not like the Edwards' are exactly poor themselves. I do find it rather disinegenous that they would make a point to talk about JK and Teresa's wealth when they have plenty of their own..

I think JK is incredibly down to earth for someone of his stature (both in terms of money and political power) ; though I haven't met him myself (though I hope to eventually! :)), I know of a lot of people who have, have read accounts, etc and there just seems to be so much to the contrary of the 'elitist' thing and I believe these folks over all this stuff..


I hadn't heard that about Edwards, laughing about JK's suggestion of the Dalai Lama. Unbelievable. How's he any different than the Tea Party/Freeper types when he does that?

I can't believe I actually was going to vote for him at one point (during the '08 primaries). So glad I didn't! I think that if he had been our nominee, we might be saying President McCain and Vice President Palin right now...:scared:

I think JK is incredibly down to earth for someone of his stature (both in terms of money and political power)

The really sad thing is that this was how Edwards was when he was first elected Senator-- very down-to-earth. He got intoxicated by the celebrity and attention of campaigning, just as Sarah Palin did-- and had this tendency encouraged in him by his relationship with a willing "flunky". (Two willing flunkies, actually... the mistress is almost a female counterpart of Young.)

I think of it as a cautionary tale for any of us who might want to run for office someday. Too much time spent with bootlickers-- whether they're aides, or media-- can be hazardous to your moral fiber.

... maybe even his first choice; but oh, what a disappointment he turned out to be later, too.

I'd given him the benefit of the doubt on a lot of this before, but after reading this, I can't help but be angry at him. Would people even still be talking about him now if not for John Kerry? He owes JK a hell of a lot more gratitude (and respect--saying he's 'not that smart'..what the hell? Sounded just like a Freeper there!) than he's apparently given him. If all this is correct, what a massive ego! :thumbsdown: And to think I'd considered voting for him in the '08 primaries. SO glad I went for Obama instead!

Edwards had a lot of good ideas (though of course there's the question of just how many of them were borrowed..), but JK is far superior to him all around. I actually think Edwards might've been jealous of him..

He means "people smart", of course. The classic way freepers (and others) denigrate intellect and education. The REAL smarts are to be found in interaction with people, so the frat boy who drinks and parties every night and dates one hundred girls has a hell of a lot more smarts that count in the real world, than the geek with his nose in a book. Because it's all about Teh Social Skillz, baby. :eyes:

Sadly, this is how too many authority figures actually operate; which in part explains how our economy got the way it is. (never bothering to ask whether being a BMOC or a Glowing Figure Of Light™ actually gives you better communication prowess after all...)

what a fucking asshole. the shit he did back then makes it no surprise what has been revealed now.

as for the 2004 primaries. Kerry won most of the South and Wes Clark came in 2nd in many of those states. so assuming Edwards would have taken it is bs. Edwards also would have lost if he ran for re-election to the Senate.

and i will never forget the way his supporters behaved and even continue to behave with their attacks on Kerry and now Obama.

Whenever anyone, without credibility or attribution, tells wacky stories about JK and THK from that era, I will invariably think how badly the gossipers come off, and how much more I LOVE the Kerrys as a couple and a force for change. Keep these rumors coming, Crazy Folks. I love 'em all.

"Oh, like totally, the Kerrys are so, like, boring! Like, really!" :silly:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/07/60minutes/main627965.shtml?tag=currentVideoInfo;segmentTitle

I can understand why Teresa was not happy during the interview of the men. Stahl's (and much of the media's) questions are coming from their view that Edwards had this incredible energy and charisma - that they implied Kerry didn't. Although Edwards was on message, he interrupted Kerry several times - to say things that Kerry himself (not Edwards) had said in the primaries. (Can you imagine Biden having done that to Obama? Not to mention, Edwards had no reason to think he was better than Kerry - but, here he clearly felt it was appropriate to interrupt.

Stahl later (in a part not on the video tape) asked Teresa about Jk's lack of charisma. Now, having seen Iowa and other primary videos, Kerry was the one who really moved the crowds more - and the votes show the same thing - in spite of all the positive media the "sunny" Edwards got.


Here is the video of the 4 of them

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=628737n&tag=related

The circumstances might explain both Teresa discretely reaching for JK's hand and the intensity of her comments on ego.

I don't remember having seen this before!

No doubt, I'm looking at it with my 20/20 Hindsight specs on, but JK and THK seem so forthright and effective, and EE seems so strident and random. Kind of just the reverse of the way the two couples were portrayed by the media.

from 2004 was how the media stereotyping easily set opinion, even when what you could see was contrary to it. Watching me, the image of the Edwards' as a storybook couple and the Kerrys as more questionable is the opposite - in both verbal and non-verbal language, the Kerrys are in agreement. John Edwards looked bored when he was not the one speaking.

I think Elizabeth was very effective on her answer on the millionaire issue - probably better (or at least just as good) as the the Kerry's.

It is hard to get more forthright than Teresa's comment and it was clear that she meant it with all her heart and out of love, but also because whoever is President likely really needs that. ( Obama seems to get the same honesty and balance from Michelle.)

More in the JK/JRE interview, you see the difference of glib vs thoughtful. To me, JRE seemed to think he knows better how to communicate than Kerry and cut him off when he was making points. The fact is that his glib rudeness made it easy for him to do this, but it likely hurt Kerry making him look weak (the alternative would have been to verbally slap down his yippy VP nominee.) It also made strong JK comments seem less strong - when the difference was the aggressiveness with which they were said.

On Iraq, they are both taking the position that JK took since 2002 - which is not where JRE was then. Yet he makes no admission that he now agrees with Kerry. He actually could have validated that JK's position was always to go to war only as a last resort and then admitted that he (Edwards) had been wrong in early 2003. This was the truth and it could have helped with the liberal base. It also would have made people like me accept Edwards more, as I knew where he had been in 2003.

My take from JRE, was that he did not understand that his number one job was to make Senator Kerry look better. Instead, he was more concerned with making sure he was shown as equal.

JRE never seemed to be able to forget that he really wanted and thought he deserved the top spot and being a team player seemed to be beyond him. Would you mind reposting that first link as I can't get it to work? I'd like to watch the JK and JRE interview.

As a bit of an aside, what is coming back to me as I watch these videos and read your thoughtful and accurate commentary is a wave of memory of just how awful it was back then. We were so scared that we would get four more years of evil and there was so much stirring up of fear coming FROM the White House and from the GOP and from the MSM. It was a terrifying and confusing time, almost hard to imagine in Obama's America (and attention must be paid to that, despite how agonizingly far we still have to go!) and Democrats and liberals were mostly just as confused and scared as the other side. It's amazing how far JK managed to get in that atmosphere and how much of his message he managed to get through even though the media refused to cover him.

There are 2 videos on the left.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/07/60minutes/main627965.shtml?tag=currentVideoInfo

Again, fascinating (and heartbreaking in retrospect!)

... when the Edwardses essentially threw the Kerrys' gestures of friendship, post-2004, back in their faces.

What this shows me is that JRE was essentially a bit callow, who would really have benefited from being under JK's mentorship. It would have made him a better progressive, and given him a true friend-- for if there is one thing we know about JK, it's that he's a true friend; and those are hard to come by in Washington.

Instead, he chose to follow the media and pick the "friends" who gave him ego snacks instead of true friendship. For all his experience as a lawyer and in politics, he sure seemed not to recognize a real ally when one was staring him in the face. Indeed, what's really shocking about this story is how bereft of close friends JRE really seemed to have been, for all his outward emotional warmth. Plenty of acquaintances and pretty-good friends, yes... very few deep, intimate ones.

... and the arrogance of those who consider themselves more emotionally intelligent than the rest.
Americans NEED to talk more about it.

It's probably going to become the last acceptable form of prejudice and discrimination, even after we conquer fat-phobia: America is very harsh on its "unlikeables", and may well continue to be so because of the plethora of information-- credible and well-sourced, too-- attesting to the importance of social networks. Social positional inequality probably will be the most enduring form of social unfairness; in large part because we blame the individual for not being in a more "connectable" position-- that is to say, for not having a pleasing enough personality. And this is both perfectly all right with our conscience, and the right, safe, prosocial thing to do according to human nature.
Just ask JK, who in 2004 committed the crime of not being up to Tony Robbins standards; and to a die-hard believer in social networking Darwinism, this is a crime indeed. Such die-hards would even like to see health care preferentially doled out to the popular: More particularly, given that well-connected people are likely to pass on health benefits to a greater number of people, should medical interventions be directed preferentially at social "hubs"?

We will excuse a multitude of sins from a person who is charismatic. I'm convinced that the studies showing good-looking people make more money, and that married people are healthier, are really both about the same thing: likeability. Physical attractiveness is socially attractive, and happy marriage is both a social support system and proof of emotional intelligence and social prowess.

When Daniel Goleman's book, Emotional Intelligence, came out, I was afraid of exactly this sort of thing-- our society subordinating everything to an idea of social skill that may not actually result in better relationships or psychological health. Subordinating everything, including ethics and our personal dignity, to the goal of relationship building at any cost. One example: people flocking to megachurches that fill them with the prosperity gospel and toxic command-and-control models of relating to each other, because goshdarnit, it's a source of social support; and the research says that not only sociable but spiritual people are happier and healthier than those who are neither. And if the only thing that fills the bill in your area happens to be an evangelical megachurch? Grab your bible, honey.

To be considered a person who doesn't get along with others, is the kiss of death for any career. Children who are too much like John Kerry and not enough like John Edwards are increasingly being put on the autism spectrum, or otherwise considered suspect personality-wise.
Age discrimination is NOT just about health insurance, but by the assumption that young and malleable = likeable. Salable. We've outsourced a lot of our jobs that aren't front office, so the pressure is on to look as fit for front office as possible, at all times-- to constantly be youthful, attractive, approachable, energetic and charismatic.
And guess where the onus on this image upkeep lies? On us! It's our responsibility to spend the money, take the time, pop the mood enhancers, go to the motivational seminars put on by, yes, charismatic frauds like James Arthur Ray. Out of our ever-dwindling paychecks.
We swallow it all whole, because the people in authority have such confidence in their voices and bearings when they recommend we do these things. Because they have won the competition to be most socially skilled; it's evident in their position of authority, and our lowlier one. And because the consequences of being considered a person of "low emotional intelligence" in American society are far too dire.

That's the whole fatal flaw of Goleman's book in a nutshell: the mechanism of proving you have good social skills is out of your control. It is NOT entirely up to you, to have anything in your life that depends on relationships. You cannot make anyone marry you, date you, hire you, or be your friend; and indeed, it is not only rude but potentially emotional rape to force it.
There has to be some other way of proving you have good emotional health, sound character and communication prowess at times in your life when the friends just aren't coming-- we should no longer put the blame 100% on you when you fail to attract scads of friends in your life, but look more closely at the interplay between individual and community-- those small-town North Dakotans were not exactly being pro-social when they failed to be welcoming to the outsiders from Miami.
The marriage and family bonus in the workplace should no longer stand; marriage and family is NOT proof of superior social skill or better character; and no longer should be automatically trust people who impress us with a lot of emotional warmth.

If we really are social beings who do better as part of communities, let us do so critically and intelligently.

Obviously, I still have some fondness for JRE and his ideas, and hate that this book is calculated almost to the T to paint them all as shams. It disgusts me to erase the entirety of a life, to "reduce a man to the sum total of his mistakes" as said in a piece about Ted Kennedy.

There's only one reason I would have to read it: to get a sense of JRE's state of mind in the middle of all this. And if this article is any indication, there will be no significant understanding of JRE's thought processes or emotions. It's all about the prurience-- and now I can see, against the Kerrys too-- and therefore it's completely worthless to me.

Because I have done months of research into what makes a person's personality change so drastically. I have read about sociopathy, self-help (I'm going to write a piece later about my theory that the JRE-mistress relationship was about her being his personal self-help guru), prosperity-gospel thinking and magical thinking (by the power of my sooper dooper communication skillz, I will become RICH!!!! Or, by the power of God); and now, about real friends vs. false friends, and how the false ones can actually be more exciting and make you feel better about yourself (I want to go back in time and SCREAM this in JRE's ears).

The message that people should be taking away from the Edwards saga is about how it is, indeed, possible for someone you've loved your whole life, someone who'd been flawed but basically decent, can change into someone you don't recognize anymore. That prospect is frightening, perhaps the scariest thing that can happen to any long-term relationship. And far too often, we blame the victim of such thoughtless decisions (damn Elizabeth for letting herself go! and having a shrewish personality!! and getting sick!!! No wonder he found a mistress: she was a constant fount of positivity!)-- instead of either keeping our loved ones from undergoing such a Kafkaesque metamorphosis, or strategizing how to get out intact if and when this prevention proves to be impossible.

If nothing else, it shows me that the idea that our personalities are fixed after we reach adulthood is complete bullshit. And that it's our relationships that change us, more than anything. How vulnerable to others' influence, and to situational forces, we really are. How different JRE's life would be today, if he'd picked John Kerry over Andrew Young.

Just about every single bad thing that happened to him, happened in an unequal relationship. Every good thing that happened to him, was because of an equal partnership (as with Elizabeth). Of course, what karynnj(?) said earlier about his "upstaging" behavior suggests that maybe he didn't know how to conduct an equal partnership, at least with another man.