"HAUNTED BY ELIZABETH!" ......so sad...so sad......

Haunted by Elizabeth

A Powerful Campaigner Missed the Cold Facts of a Modern Election
John and Elizabeth Edwards in Tipton, Iowa, in June 2007. (Photo by John Edwards 2008 Campaign)
John and Elizabeth Edwards in Tipton, Iowa, in June 2007. (Photo by John Edwards 2008 Campaign)
By Anne Taylor Fleming 08/12/2008 | 10 Comments

That’s the question that continues to haunt the painful saga of John and Elizabeth Edwards. Not that she loves him and stayed with him after he confessed to having an affair (and possible lust child; though whether he told her about that we don’t know).



If we have learned one thing watching Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton, it is that marriages are complex, each and every one, with its bargains, and attachments, and wounds that run deep. After, of course, insisting she was not some little woman standing by her man, Hillary Clinton was in many respects just that. It was clearly what she needed to do, sailing on post-presidency into the Senate and her own fierce run for the White House.


(Matt Mahurin)
Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

No, the question in Elizabeth Edwards's case is: Why in the world did she go ahead and let him run -- run with him, run hard all across the country, giving her all despite her stage four cancer and her two young children -- after she knew. After she knew about his dalliance with a bouncy, blond so-called filmmaker with a penchant for New Age spirituality.



In these days of her public humiliation, one wants not to add to it. He is the cad, the creep. Looking back at his charm, his expensively coiffed hair, his caramel-voiced defense of the poor --- while he built a palatial country estate. All this was a bit suspicious at the time. There were overtones of another Slick Willy.



But then there was Elizabeth Edwards. She was the moral anchoring point, the class act. So authentic, so warm, so unslick, so graceful, so brave. If a woman of such obvious depth and concern for the country, a woman who had lost a son and had faced cancer with openness and strength -- sharing it all but not in a sympathy-begging way -- if a woman like that loved a man like that, well then, he must be OK, too.



He must be, underneath the mediagenic voice and looks, real, too. Because he loved her. Because he was proud of her and said so at every turn. Because she was his sounding board, his best surrogate, his No. 1 campaigner.



The country needed her husband, she told us, with that wonderful smile, and she was willing to throw heart and soul into his run. Not just for him, not just to help him fulfill his ambitions -- but for us. She made believers of us all -- not about him, but about herself. She was the real deal, someone we could all emulate, want to get to know, want for a friend.



Yes, there was carping at the time from some quarters as they launched their White House quest, running side by side and hand in hand. What about the kids? They were little; they needed stability, a mom at home (what about dad?). And what about the cancer? Was she, the mother of such young children, jeopardizing her health by barreling around the county helping to humanize and sell her husband?



There was a bit of that, and the implication that her ego, too, might be involved -- that she wasn’t quite as selfless as she appeared. But, with her energy and accessibility, she made believers of just about everyone, especially after she announced the cancer was back and she -- they -- would still run full-tilt.



Amazing, touching and, perhaps in hindsight, a little nuts. Because she knew all that time about the affair. She had to know the tabloids were after the story and after her husband -- stalking him as he stalked the White House. It’s just a little bit bizarre, that disconnect, even from someone so special and admirable.



Somewhere in all this, she, too, put the blinders on. One can only assume she was thinking that he wouldn’t be found out. What if he had somehow gotten into more serious contention? What if he had actually won the nomination? What if had come out now, on the practical eve, of the convention? Would the media and the public just swallow hard and say, oh well, old news. None of our business.



Not this year. It would have been a mess, a bigger one than there is now.



That’s what is both troubling and sad. You can make the argument that this is private stuff, private pain. Many people clearly believe that would be a more desirable state of affairs -- where personal lives and personal indiscretions are not constantly fair game. But that is not the world we live in right now, nor the country.



Elizabeth Edwards, so spot on in every way, had to know that. It wasn’t going to be tucked under any rug in her nice, new house. She could forgive him and re-embrace him -- as she says she has. But the country might not be able to do that anymore. Bill Clinton seemed to get away with bimbo eruptions when he was first running for president, but the level of cad fatigue has geometrically increased. And, by running with her husband, Elizabeth Edwards, in effect, invited us all in -- yes, even those nasty tabloids who had been chasing him from day one.



I just wish she hadn’t. I don’t want to know. I didn’t want to see the requisite mea culpa from the latest cad, didn’t want to have to imagine the disgust and hurt of his wife and family.



At least, John Edwards made the repentance rounds on his own. Elizabeth Edwards did not have to stand by her man, like Silda Spitzer, her face etched in pain and humiliation. That’s something. But the bottom line is the same: if you want to keep it really private, you can't run for public office. Not today.



Anne Taylor Fleming is a novelist, commentator and essayist for "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer." She is the author of a memoir, "Motherhood Deferred: A Woman's Journey."


http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/haunted-by-elizabeth

And none more so than the asshole himself.

But I liked what he said, a great deal. He wasn't my number one, because something about him said Non-Winner to me. But he was my second choice behind Obama.

I think Elizabeth would have been an amazing first lady.

I think she is helping to rehabilitate his tawdry reputation - if only for the sake of her children. And also because she probably loves him.

I realize I'm accusing her of lying, but - yes - I really don't think she knew back then in 2006.

I know too many women who have been in her shoes, and they either fling the dirt out there and let it all hang out (and usually ditch the adulterer), or they try to cover it up. Elizabeth isn't stupid. She would know that this would come out. She wasn't the one in the throes of an affair. She didn't lose every last ounce of common sense while having an affair. He's the one who took ALL the risks, imo. He's the one who thought he could have it all - the White House, the wife, the family and the flake.

I just don't believe she's telling the truth. It doesn't pass the smell test. Sorry.

(Former Edward supporter, who thankfully didn't have the chance to vote for him. I voted for Obama.)

I think you nailed it.

and I think he lied in his interview because he had lied to her.

KNEW how this would play out...

it was never going to be Bill Clinton, pt. 2...

he wasn't going to get there...i think she was sure of that...

he has/had some great ideas...he got heard...but it was never going to go where he wanted it to....

i think she knew that if it came too far along...she could put it away...

she is the strong one....

and that she knew when Edwards said she knew is probably not the truth of it. Whatever...it's sad even if my NC experience with him was what has come out...I did always respect Elizabeth as the "best side of him" and the one who knew the TRUTH about what we were dealing with...us Progressives...not the rest ...but she was a reader of the "Progressive Blogs" so she knew what we felt.

I would hope not to see that Elizabeth used us...but then...we are all so used to being used by our Party...what else is new about it? :-(

What year is it? Do we have the wheel yet?!

Someone introduce Anne Taylor to adult married life where about half of men and women have extra-marital affairs.

There's nothing more creepy than some voyeur's gratuitous agony over the state of someone else's marriage.

She was the "Wind beneath his Wings and Hair?" (so to speak) and she was GOOD...she went after Annie Coulter, she fought against her breast cancer and made Poverty and Health Care "Her Personal Issue!"

That John trashed all that with his behavior doesn't take away from what she was doing on her own...{except he caught her up in his "tawdry storyline" which will have legs through our Dem Convention} given the people he used to sell his lies!

Out of this..(except that Elizabeth "covered for him" saying that the "affair ended in '06 and she knew all about it) ...SHE COMES OUT SHINING..for what she tried to do even though she has a form of cancer that might not give her a long time on this earth.

:shrug: I see Elizabeth as a true fighter for Progressives......John was ALWAYS..DLC!

all the way around. peace, b

the darkest stuff gets me down..eats into my soul. I still feel it's better we try ...than to give into the cynical views that our M$M tries to force us into. It's alot of pain that way...but we who cling to that...are not stupid...or clueless...

It's just that we know the facts but still have some "optimistic view" that in the end...maybe long after we are gone...we tried to make a difference and that what we hoped for...might be far after we are gone...but that we will get our "time cycle" and be remembered for how hard we fought.

Yeah...it's kind of altruistic.......and maybe not practical. But, that some of us hope for this should be allowed to exist with the rest of you...NO? :shrug:

Get the smelling salts.

a "fictional character" from a novel that was read by MILLIONS all OVER THE WORLD.

There is a lot about Melanie Wilkes that's admirable in these times...and Margaret Mitchell wrote a great SAGA that resonated even though folks here think it's a Racist Diatribe from a Racist Time and should be "burned or buried."

Amazing how those of us on the "Left" are as anxious as those on the "Right" to always have "History and Literature" conform to the prevailing winds.

I've been called racist for pointing out that Mitchell's book...said much about American Culture and History in "that time." She wrote about a "Capsule in Time" and folks always want to make her out as racist...but she wasn't. History will show she tried to move us "forward" ...not "backward" in our dealing with our sordid American History where we KILLED Native Americans in the name of Capitalism and Free Markets...and we caused a WAR IN the US over issues that still divide us to this DAY...North and South...and what drove both of them...

Just saying...and expect to be called some Racist Ignorant, for what I'm saying...I've heard it before. :-( That we who are Lefty Dems trash our own is another sad thing.

Also, Ms Mitchell owes a lot to Mary Chesnut, whose diary, I'm convinced, she used for background material for her book.

As for GWTW, it did indeed, capture a capsule in time and the racist attitudes of the southern aristocracy. It also captured the racist attitudes prevalent at the time that she wrote it that was reflected in the book itself.

The characters in the book were rather typical of the time. Scarlett, the wealthy, spoiled, and slightly disreputable narcissist; Ashley, the "honorable" romantic mourning the death of southern virtue; Melanie the pale flower in need of protection by the knights of southern chivalry; Rhett, the cynical but dashing ne'er do well with a heart of gold and hidden nobility; and, of course the slaves. Happy and obedient like "Mammy", or stupid, or vicious, dehumanized non-entities used to add a not-very-interesting backdrop to the melodrama.

Too bad that Margaret didn't write a sequel in which the likes of Scarlett, and the rest, did come back to power on the backs of the freed slaves who had been sold out by their liberators and, again, forced into servitude.

in the end even Scarlett realized that Melanie and Mammy (who never struck me as being particularily happy) were the ones who held everyone together. They were the "steel magnolias" in the book.

I know it's not popular to say, but I still love that book and the movie. The only truly horrifying thing from all of it is Hattie MacDonald's speech when she accepted the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress - though I suppose that is a commentary on the era the movie was made in.

:rofl:

depicts about both Ashley and Melanie and that relationship.

I know...you don't get the nuance. It's good for you to "laugh" and just go with what you think.

I'm just pointing out...it's more complex than your :rofl: which shoves it off ...reveals.

You obviously aren't willing to hear any other viewpoint than :rofl:

It's okay...we still co-exist on this website. I like much of what you post and you've even posted on some of my posts...so we can agree that we differ on this? :shrug: But, I listen to you...and hope that you listen to me...since we are both on this site...trying to work for a better America...if there's anything left to still look for better?

Peace!

Lately I've been more cynical than a cat watching a refrigerator door.

Since I live in a "cat household"...I understand, very well what you say! lol's...

as a previous poster indicated, some smelling salts are in order

from all that's been written. I won't give you that "Hankie" Mz Skittles...because your "ears are closed" and you do Nahh...Nahhh ....Nahh...to everything that differs from your own viewpoint.

But you and I have been on DU here for YEARS...(So Much ..we've been through in this time}...yet you think that you and I are here because we are on "OPPOSITE SIDES?"

Do you REALLY THINK that you and I, after all these years, are still here because we aren't working for the "same side?" :shrug: Tell me how you could believe that?

Peace!
koko

Edited: Typo's..etc.

almost like the rest of us. But being the gracious lady she is - she went along with him and covered for him that they worked this out long ago. I think not. But we'll never really know - will we?

EDIT: Ah - I see that people don't believe this (I just read it in various places). Well, I certainly wasn't in EE's mind at the time, so I can't prove it.

She suspected...but didn't find out the full stuff and didn't want him to "go down" and ruin what they had built, together.

That's why this is so sad.

Another sad thing is that Edwards might have picked up early on that Elizabeth was the one who had all the Progressives loving her. It got into a "marital ego war between them." And, then Elizabeth get's breast cancer and everything goes to her...and he feels left out...and goes for the "feel good."

But, that's just the psychology...and one either "tastes the fruit after being tempted" or one has principles that "resists the fruit." I prefer the one who "resists."

Jaysus...I sound like some fundie saying this crap...but it flew into my head...because the truth of it is ...we all want POLITICIANS with PRINCIPLES! Why IS IT that's so HARD TO FIND? :shrug:

Life is hard and complicated. Should we all be chasing after "fresh butt?" What is it in our culture that makes this the ANSWER? :shrug:

See my post 28.

I don't think she would have.

I don't buy this time line AT ALL and I always found it suspicious that he dropped out RIGHT BEFORE Super Tuesday.

I know...Questions...Questions. But check those posts out.

:hi:

and when the numbers didn't come in for him..he gave it up. Yet, it didn't seem like him to do that.
Must have been a factor...but it's hard to know what happened then that caused him to drop out. Was he warned? What?

The timing was beyond odd.

It's unlikely that a man would have an affair and run home to wifey-poo and say "hey, guess what I just did?"

Every woman I know , with a cheating husband, had to darned near become a CSI detective to find out, and only as a las resort, did the creep come clean..

She may have questioned him in '06 when the story surfaced, but I would bet everything I have, that he denied it and tried to make her think she was imagining things..

THAT"S probably the "She's known since '06", that he was talking about..

I feel sorry for all the people who sent in contributions when they couldn't afford it..so his campaign could funnel hush money to her..

if he was "funneling campaign money" or his "benefactor" took care of it all so that the Campaign wouldn't be implicated.

So many questions...and many of us wish we didn't want to know the answers...yet this issue keeps coming up more and more on our Dem Side where we really believe our Dems just "must be better than those Repugs with "closet sex...mistresses and all the rest." Yet...because we are so believing in our Dems...shouldn't we hold them accountable? We expect the Repugs to be disreputable sorts...and nothing would shock us about them..even bestiality (the last test to have hem hurdle) but...when we are in such "dire times...where our way of life is on the brink" and we look to our Dems to help us out...shouldn't we expect more and better from our candidates? :shrug:

I expect him and his family to retreat to their house in the woods, and pretty much stay there..for the duration..

I feel really sorry for his daughter at college.. Can you even imagine what she's going through?..knowing that her sick mother probably needs her, and yet wanting to go out on her own too?..and the razzing she's sure to be getting from the crassest of students at her school..

That's what cheaters forget about.. what it does to their familes...who got nothing from the affair, except the bad stuff

for parents...one can't understand anyone doing that when she worked so hard. The little ones...can be kept away from some of it...but not Kate.

I think of Chelsea and Amy...what they went through, too. Yet the Repug kids thrive.

You do realize that feminism held her down and forced her to delay having children, right? It's all in her book, "WAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!" I'd take anything she said with a big ol' bag of salt - I think she takes antyhing like this a tad too personally, being close in age to Ms Edwards and aloi having undergone a buttwad of fertilty treatments; she may have confused herself for Ms Edwards.

what many of us felt. Maybe not here on DU...but there were some of us. I don't know her writings from her past.

his campaign. I can't stomach blaming Elizabeth Edwards, a woman dealing with cancer, for the actions of her admittedly, narcissistic husband. I imagine she wasn't thinking very clearly under the stress?

I posted my opinion above.

You don't send hubby - who just admitted to an affair - back on the road with the woman he had an affair with, especially since she was SO unnecessary to the campaign.

Ms. Hunter lamented to a reporter/friend at Newsweek that John did not defend her?

I don't know when Elizabeth Edwards found out, but like you, I don't think she'd support hiring his mistress to make "documentaries" for the web.

I find it absurd that we are expecting Elizabeth to demand her husband stop pressing the issue of poverty, health care etc. because he was caught having an affair. John didn't appear to be in it to win it. He wanted to raise specific issues.

We also don't know what they talked about behind the scenes. Perhaps they had a deal that if he got too close to winning he'd drop out to prevent a scandal from harming our chances in the GE?

I think it's ridiculous to blame the victim so to speak. John and Elizabeth Edwards appear to care about the same things, i.e. the working class, poverty, health care and so on. They were instrumental in pressing these issues and bringing them into the debate.

I admit, I've evolved on this issue, but that's how I intend to view this going forward.

She is the victim, and she's well within the scope of normal human behavior to protect her family.

I was speaking in general terms about articles like those in the OP.

Seriously, what what she supposed to do? Stamp her foot and say "I FORBID you to run!"? Lock him in a closet? Maybe she did say not to run, and he did it anyway. She could shout from the rooftops that she wasn't supporting her husband because he's an unfaithful, untrustworthy jerk and draw all sorts of crazy attention to them, or maybe she was operating on the (very very very) slim chance they could get through this.

I highly doubt she was as nefariously complicit as some here would have her.

I suspect that she found out much later, after she had already been helping him campaign, and that the revelation had something to do with why he dropped out when he did.

She kind of "has" to say now that she knew earlier than she did, and they "have" to say he ended the affair in 2006. But he was still being photographed in close proximity to Rielle Hunter in the last few days of December 2006, so my guess is they were still sleeping together for a while past that 2006 cut-off date.

The story that the affair ended in 2006 and that he told Elizabeth all about it then is precisely the sort of story that spouses present to the world when they want to put the best public face on an unfortunate situation. I am betting that she didn't know during msot of his campaign, and that when she found out, she not only leapt off the campaign train, but also told him he would inevitably be found out and thus ruin any chance of winning the nomination or any major post in the next administration.