RSS Feed Menu
Lee Stranahan, in the Huffington Post, writes:
Elizabeth Edwards has built up a tremendous reserve of public support and respect. It’s earned. She’s smart, accomplished, articulate and has suffered far more than her share of personal tragedy. But she also chose to launch a celebrity (sorta) tell-all book called Resilience that covers her husband John Edward’s affair and so she opens herself and her relationship up as a subject of public discussion.
So let’s be clear; in equal proportion to her victimhood, Elizabeth Edwards also aided and abetted her husband in deceiving Democratic voters on an unprecedented scale.
She helped her husband commit an odd sort of fraud – taking money from thousands of people under false premises, in a sort of personality Ponzi scheme that would have made Bernie Madoff blush. Elizabeth Edwards knew that narrative of the Edwards’s personal relationship was a winner with voters and she helped spin it. She was an active part of his campaign and not just for policy reasons.
Read the rest here.
midcon // May 5, 2009 at 12:32 pm
This blurb really is not worthy of this site. We do not have the time, energy, or interest in what Edwards did, who he did with, and whether his wife knew or what she felt. There are things that are between a husband and wife. This happens to one of those things. I cannot believe that someone would think that this piece belongs here. The Huffington Post is the appropriate place for this trash. You should have left it there.
ChristianMiller // May 5, 2009 at 12:37 pm
The real story is the fact that no media outlet tried to get this story other than the Enquirer. No wonder the mainstream papers are failing. And this kind of media cocooning and cozy relationships with Democrats will come back to haunt Democrats someday. This altered the Democrat primary. Hillary would have won IMO.
A.B. // May 5, 2009 at 3:30 pm
“The real story is the fact that no media outlet tried to get this story other than the Enquirer.”(Franco)”The Huffington Post is the appropriate place for this trash.”(midcon) Absolutely right, both comments. This kind of article is closely related to the “catfight” themed article, so prized among the mass media.
ireign // May 5, 2009 at 4:14 pm
That is absurd. You had a guy running for office based on “family values” and who had made his family the centerpiece of his campaign. The fact that he was simultaneously having an affair and lying about it is of some importance. I doubt if the poltician in question was a member of the religious right that midcon would have the same reaction. Given that the media saw fit to cover Bush’s daughters underage drinking which should of been of little consequence, the Edwards affair should have received greater coverage. Giuliani’s marital woes received great coverage. Honest liberals like Mickey Kaus admit this. If Edwards was running for mayor of Charlotte, AB and midcon may have a point but not for President and not with the emphasis on his family. Moreover, it seems likely that Edwards violated campaign finance laws and may be the father of the child. Imagine if the Democrats had nominated him and then this news came out. What Edwards did was selfish and he promoted his own interests over his party’s and the country’s. He could have and should have not run for President.
krove // May 5, 2009 at 6:56 pm
I can’t and won’t defend Edwards or his wife. He was wrong to even consider running for President. And she was wrong for allowing him too.Not sure this belongs here. It should stay at the enquirer.
midcon // May 5, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Actually ireign, I pay little to no attention to politicians peccadillos regardless of whether they are left or right. Criticism of Elizabeth Edwards regarding her and her husband’s decision to maintain the privacy of their affairs has no place on this or any other site that advertises itself to be serious about governing and leadership. I don’t defend or support either of them and certainly have no desire to know what goes on in their bedroom.I could have written, and did say, essentially the same thing about Bush daughters. Politicians who claim “family values” as a part of their campaigns might as well be sayig blah, blah, blah, because I don’t hear and don’t have time for the. These are serious times and we need serious people. Edwards failed my test for other reasons, this was not one of them.
Bulldoglover100 // May 6, 2009 at 5:55 am
Ireign,….if Edwards was deceiving by running on family values and should not have done so according to YOU…how about David Vitter? You remember him….diaper wearing, hookers and a child out of wed lock and yet he is running on family values for the Republican party and the RNC is giving him quite a pay load of money to do so….any thoughts there?This is the problem with our party. It’s why we have become a joke and why we keep losing people. We sling those rocks and stand naked in our glass houses, guilty of the same things….
sinz54 // May 6, 2009 at 7:28 am
David Frum,if you’re reading this:This screed on Elizabeth Edwards has nothing to do with the stated mission of New Majority, which is “Building a conservatism that can win again.”It came from the Huffington Post. And that’s where it belongs.
InTheMiddle12 // May 6, 2009 at 7:58 am
Oh please. Going after Elizabeth Edwards, a cancer survivor and now an adultery survivor. This smells of a dead GOP strategy. Give us a break and remove this post, it’s ridiculous.
ireign // May 6, 2009 at 11:14 am
David Vitter did not have a child out of wedlock. Bullcraplover, do you do any factchecking before making your allegations? Moreover, he is running for the SENATE not for PRESIDENT. Not what he did was much better but there is a distinction between being leader of the country and of the free world and being one of 100 Senators. And you know what, when Vitter scandal materialized some Democrats did call for his resignation. He will have to answer to the voters. Larry Craig was forced to resign. Congressman Fossella, remember him? He also resigned. Edwards never should have run for President. And it is unfortunate that the main victim of this case is the woman he had an affair with, who is probably raising his child as a single mother under intense scrutiny and his aide who is extremely unlikely to have fatherered the child. The fact is the msm covers Republican family issues ad nauseum (remember the Vanity Fair piece on Giuliani’s wife) and dropped the ball on this one. As for inthemiddle-Elizabeth Edwards chose to cover up for husband and Mrs. Edwards was throwing many stones before and after the campaign. If she dishes it out, she should have to be able to take it. The fact that she has cancer doesn’t mean that no one can attack some of her actions.
sinz54 // May 7, 2009 at 8:29 am
ireign: Do you believe Grover Cleveland should never have run for President?As you may recall from your history, his opponents had charged that he fathered an illegitimate child. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ma_ma_wheres_my_pa.jpgCleveland admitted he had been with the woman; but since that woman had been with several other men too, it wasn’t clear who was the father of that child. Nevertheless, Cleveland had agreed to pay child support. So the voters shrugged–and elected Cleveland to two terms.