When I drove Teresa around in Madison in 2004 was when I saw how Elizabeth Edwards was percieved

[zulchzulu]

I was a driver for the Kerry campaign in 2003-04 when he and others in the campaign visited Madison, Wisconsin. I got to be the driver for John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Chris Heinz, Vanessa and Alexandra Kerry, Teresa Heinz Kerry and others that were visiting the city leading up to the successfully won Wisconsin primary as well as during the preparations for the first debate between Kerry and Bush in the presidential race.

Having moved to the area from San Francisco just months before, I was a little lost every now and then with the city's oddly complex one ways and other labyrinthine road tendencies. GPS was still expensive...

What was an amazing experience was driving Teresa Heinz Kerry and her friends around the city and to a few events before she spoke to a couple dozen people at the Kerry headquarters near Capitol Square. Looking back, Kerry was behind Al Sharpton at that point in late November 2003 in national polls. The Iowa race was just beginning to come to fruition. That is another story for the ages.

Why do I bring this up?

Well, it has to do with the perception within the people who were in the inner circle of the Democratic primary about who was doing what and how it would all work out in the end as the Primary results started coming in that then lead to the 2004 Presidential race.

When I arrived at the private airport to pick up Teresa Heinz Kerry and friends, I didn't know what to expect. I had the big van and was ready to take them to several destinations that would take all day. Meeting Teresa was very engaging. She is a wonderful person... articulate, attractive, not snobby... Her friends had been with her on their beginning tour of the country that would lead to the national Presidential race.

As everyone piled into the swanky van, Teresa sat in the front seat with me and we engaged in political talk about the primary race. She was very down to earth and funny.

What was the reason why I am posting this is how the others talked about what was going on. They were pretty unplugged. One said "did you see Elizabeth Edwards on CNN this morning? Does she own a comb?"... Teresa rolled her eyes when I peered over while trying to figure out how to get to the first destination.

Another then chimed in "It's Elizabeth who wants the keys to the White House, not John..." and there were mild chuckles amid the others within earshot.

Let me be clear that Teresa Heinz Kerry was not in any way a participant in the discussion. She was either pondering the landscape or was talking to me or looking at her notes.

But what the others were saying was something I always thought about; particularly regarding the relationship with John and Elizabeth Edwards. Frankly, I only wish them both the best at this point and certainly hope Elizabeth Edwards has the upper hand in her health troubles.

I thought I would share this experience in light of the Oprah interview and all the coming repercussions that Elizabeth Edwards' book will invoke.

On edit: changed from "operating" to "percieved"

[mth44sc]

1. Me - I just want my money back from John

After all - he got it under fraudulent circumstances...

[truebrit71]

23. Me too...

...

[grantcart]

95. me three

[question everything]

2. I wish that Elizabeth chose to do what she preaches

guard her family.

She may be thinking that writing the book and talking about it are a good catharsis for her, but she should think of her children, especially the small ones. Does she want them to hate their father, especially after she is gone?

The clip that I saw showed her talking about guarding her family, about the other woman wanting what was hers, instead of building her own. About, even, John's life vs. hers. But all she is doing is hurting her family, instead of guarding it.

Sad.

[peace13]

5. John was a comb hogger what can I say.

He made his bed and that of his family. If Elizabeth were smart she would set herself up so that she did not ever need his help. He did not think of his kids when he boinked the bimbo and he won't think of them in the future. Sorry, been there.

[pnwmom]

13. If she succeeds in keeping her husband from marrying another

narcissist who couldn't care less about Elizabeth's and his children, then it will be worth it.

[sybylla]

28. Guarding her children from the truth doesn't protect them from anything

It only makes matters worse. You keep the truth from people you don't respect. If you respect your kids, you tell the truth.

I have a sister-in-law who was abused by her first husband. She never talked about it with her son who was about 5 when they split. She always took the high road. Never told her son the truth, her feelings about it, and how it affected the family and the decisions she'd made at the time. A few years ago, when that young man was in his late twenties, he one day spewed forth his father's BS about how his mother had made it all up. That she had never been abused, hit or verbally beaten. My husband not only saw the bruises over a period of months, he helped move his sister out of the house. While in the process, he caught this great "father" clutching his sister by the throat with his arm cocked back to strike her again. So her reward for refusing to speak the truth with her son was that he grew up believing lies about them both. Lies my husband had to disabuse him of 25 years later.

The day John Edwards slept with another woman was the day someone should have been thinking of the children. But for some reason, we always want to blame the messenger instead of the adulterer.

[northernlights]

30. they will hate her father, regardless

or at least hate his behavior. And they can either learn about their father from the tabloids or from their mother.

At least she has not brought to their attention the possibility that her cancer is a result of the fertility treatments she underwent in order to give him more children.

I really don't care that she chose to publish her feelings. As someone wrote on the other thread, she's probably tying up loose ends while she can.

She is a public person, her humiliation is fodder for the tabloids, so why shouldn't she publish her truth?

[genna]

36. I don't understand what guarding your children means if you set the example

that having a cheating spouse is perfectly fine?

What does hating one's father have to do with it?


Maybe every marriage and every partnership is heaven on earth. In my experience, there are plenty of problems involved if a relationship endures. It depends on your background whether you think privacy is more important than reconciliation. In a perfect world, maybe you can have both privacy and reconciliation.

In my opinion, reconciliation is more important. You have to dig out the truth and confront it. It is better for the couple and for the children involved. Since they are a public couple, their lives are public (although I think the press should have stayed out of it after Edwards lost the primary). I think children grow up stronger when infidelity is addressed in a marriage as opposed to pretending it didn't happen. I think those of us better understand the limits on marriage.

[MonteLukast]

41. I agree totally. (nm)

[mzmolly]

58. I think your point would be valid if the story wasn't already

exposed.

[rwheeler31]

3. What is driving her to do this ugly expose?

Your post was enlightening.

[pnwmom]

14. She didn't start this ugly expose. She's the victim here.

And a victim is entitled to fight back against her attackers.

[karynnj]

19. In August, completely true

Now, it IS her book and book tour that has caused the story to resurface. She might resent that even when she wpoke on healthcare, the internet story was whether she was wearing her ring. Her goal might be to get everything out and have the media orgy on it consume itself so it never appears again. If that is the the idea, I doubt it will work - this is feeding the fire.

[northernlights]

31. maybe the fact that she has limited time

with mestaticized cancer it's a matter of time.

She's a public person, and her humiliation was very public. Maybe she dragged this out here to give her story while she still could.

[Hutzpa]

4. Seeing the Oprah interview and the

admittance of her knowing that John Edwards was involved with this mistress since 2006 exposes
her for the fraud she is, when Oprah asked her the question about being in love with John, I was
surprised but not shocked with her answer.

She strikes me as an opportunist.....prepared to throw her husband under the bus.

[Inspired]

7. How dare you judge her in this way.

I think your comment is very rude and obviously ignorant of who Elizbeth Edwards is.

[Adelante]

21. She puts herself out there, she gets judged

It was her decision to drag this all but forgotten sex scandal back into the public arena. To expect people to all reach the same conclusions on this, because you revere Elizabeth Edwards, is not realistic.

[pnwmom]

16. Hunter was the opportunist -- jumping on a man who was struggling through

a terrible illness with his wife and their children.

Elizabeth is in pain, physically and emotionally. Let her be.

[cali]

20. oh, the poor wittle piece of shit, johny.

and sorry, much as I sympathize with EE, she's the one that's made herself the subject at this point in time.

[pnwmom]

46. What a compassionate attitude. n/t

[MonteLukast]

48. That responder's not known for their compassion.

And they're not even the worst of the wannabe Kenneth Starrs here.

[cali]

53. I'd say that you don't have the slightest clue

about me. and furthermore, I'll thank you not to break the rules and call me out again.

[cali]

54. no, I don't have much compassion for him. I have for his wife and kids

but for him/ no.

[sybylla]

29. Yeah, because John wasn't a grown man

capable of defending himself against the improper advances of a woman. Fer crissakes. How on earth does he get a pass for tearing his family apart in such a destructive way?

[MonteLukast]

38. I've always wondered that, too.

Why didn't he fight her off? Why did he even find her a good companion, let alone worth risking everything he'd ever worked for?

All I know is, she had quite a way with words and flattery, and did go after JE in a calculated and systematic way, to the point of thinking of him as a "project". He's been a lawyer long enough that he ought to know when he was being played. His reaction to the illness could have been what tipped him over the edge... but his boneheadedness about human nature at that time is so out-of-character for an accomplished trial lawyer, who are expected, if they're that successful, to have strong instincts about people.

Even more baffling is the fact that he DID take some steps to distance himself from her, as evidenced by Elizabeth's Time article. It would truly be reckless if he went back to her after that point, because by then his campaign was not just barely started... it was by then full-blown. It wouldn't make any sense if he did, frankly. Unless he still thought of her as a friend and still went to her on occasion for emotional (not sexual) support.

It doesn't matter to me how much he carried on with her in 2006. What would be significant is if he were still with her in 2007, and especially after March 2007, when Elizabeth announced the return of her cancer.

[karynnj]

42. You don't go to a former mistress for emotional support

There is something to avoiding the occasion of sin. Ask yourself whether Elizabeth, given the opportunity, would have oked him having a coffee with Rielle after JRE confessed. I really doubt it.

You are sweet to try to find a way that things are less damning, but consider that even Elizabeth doesn't have enough faith to reject out of hand that he continued the affair even after confessing. The fact is that if that baby is his - and I doubt he would have gone to the hotel otherwise, that baby was conceived a month after Elizabeth's stage 4 diagnosis and all the intervals where he professed his love for Elizabeth and they "bravely" continued their quest to "fight poverty". He was a reckless jerk to have the affair before he told her, he is completely slime continuing (if he did) it in April 2007.

[MonteLukast]

45. There is no evidence he was with her after March 2007...

... other than the hotel baby picture and the trip to California. If there are any more pictures, I need to know, because everything else fits the picture of everything sexual ceasing in early 2007... even the last paycheck on April 1, 2007.
I'm surprised nobody's brought up phone and e-mail records. That would give us a much clearer picture of what's going on.

He knew enough that what he was doing was wrong, that if he still were leaning on RH emotionally, he would NOT have told Elizabeth if he were calling her or seeing her. Having an affair emotionally is just as much cheating, and just as much "allowing her into our lives"; but obviously it would not, by itself, result in a baby.

I think this would also be about the time that RH would turn up the pressure, pleading poverty and playing on John's persona... something like, "how can you really be a champion of the poor if you're going to leave me, a poor, pregnant person right in front of you, left to be broke and possible homeless?" He's a naturally kind, generous man; and she would have taken advantage of that.

[JI7]

71. based on the birth of the child, Edwards was with her after March 2007

unless you don't think that baby is his. but even Elizabeth said she didn't know if the baby was Edwards which means she thinks or knows that Edwards was with her after March 2007.

[MonteLukast]

73. Or she simply didn't want to talk about the baby.

And no, I don't think it's his.

She would have been conceived not in April (sorry karynnj) but in May or June 2007.

And do you think he might have made his 6-hour hotel trip to secretly collect DNA from the baby? Which, without the consent of the mother, is probably illegal.

[JI7]

75. the baby looks just like him , if there was no way Edwards was with her

at that time than Elizabeth would have been able to say she knew for sure it wasn't his.

so, lets say that it's proven that Edwards is the father of that baby , what will your opinion of the whole thing be then ?

[MonteLukast]

76. *thinks*

Then he's going to have to pay child support and college. Which is probably what RH was after all along-- a meal ticket and notoriety.

Why the HELL didn't JE use a condom?! :banghead: Did he assume RH would be less likely to get pregnant at her age? Did she lie to him about using birth control?

There's a good chance RH was a sociopath, and they ALWAYS present themselves in the best possible light to whoever they're trying to hook. He was a damn lawyer-- he should have had good instincts about people. Why was he so clueless at a psychological con job turned on him?

He may publicly acknowledge the child, but I don't think he's going to embrace her fully until Elizabeth is gone. It would be too painful to Elizabeth, whom he still loves and more importantly, with whom he has a history together.

More than that, he's probably thoroughly disgusted with himself for falling for RH, and-- if the child is his-- being connected to her forever.

I'm not sure he'll ever be comfortable being there emotionally for the child. He's not marrying RH-- that deluded fool. How do you be a father to a child whose mother you probably hate the thought of?

[karynnj]

78. How is that - wasn't the baby born in January? I thought that was the case.

At any rate - May or June is not better - it extends the affair - if the kid is his.

[MonteLukast]

79. February 28, 2008 (nm)

[karynnj]

82. I stand corrected - though it improves nothings for JRE

[MonteLukast]

84. The thing that's truly baffling to me is...

... that after his announcement, he'd actually taken steps to distance himself from RH. He did ask his brother-in-law Jay to take over the videography. He did pay her one last payment from the campaign, on April 1st, which would fit a final paycheck after termination of contract (though a little late). There are no pictures of him in that time frame sneaking off for a tryst (though I haven't done my research yet on when he was alone then).

It could have been a weak moment in May or June, when he'd sought her out-- and for some monumentally stupid reason I cannot begin to fathom, he didn't think what could happen if a pregnancy resulted.

His failure to acknowledge the child is also why I'm not convinced that baby is his. Looking like him doesn't mean a whole lot. I say, full speed ahead with the DNA test, lihe he'd said he wanted last summer. It would remove a huge burden.

[karynnj]

87. The fact is that neither of us really know Edwards - other than what he wanted to show

Both as a trial lawyer and a candidate, acting skills help. What is clear is that he had the ability to convey complete sincerity and eloquently get people to believe. That is needed for both professions.

In the BEST cases, that sincerity is based on core essential beliefs. In the worst, it is for self interest and manipulation. Very few people would completely at either ends of the spectrum. With Edwards, I suspect that there was a lot of the latter, but he convinced himself in each case of what he was saying. This would account for him being able to sound sincere pushing very very different agendas in 2004 and 2008.

An interesting side point, is he and other people like him on this often seem more honest and more sincere than people who are more honest and principled. Edwards, with his open faced, wide eyed assurances that he would tell the truth made many ignore that his actions did match his words. A person, who is generally truthful looks awkward when telling social lies or part of the truth. He/she also shows real embarrassment and regret when admitting mistakes. Our culture sees the Edwards' type person (and Clinton, Reagan and George W - who I am NOT equating in any other way - had similar traits) as more believable UNTIL there is something so major that we can no longer suspend disbelieve.

Elizabeth had similar skills - even after she viciously attacked JRE's potential opponents and their spouses, she was still seen as a nice, pleasant down to earth woman. The image she conveys is one of a reasonable, personable woman who is just like you. But, takes those attacks and strip out who did them - and they are far outside of the norm.

[karynnj]

77. There is no evidence other than he was caught going to the hotel where she

was - after midnight - in 2008 and the fact that ELIZABETH doesn't reject out of hand that the baby - conceived in April 2007 - could be John's. That means she is not 100% sure he ended that relationship when he told her in December 2006.

As to email or phone records, no one had any legitimate reason to subpoena them. (Elizabeth might have had the ability to get them - no one else has the right to records of his private communications.

As to wanting her provided for, there is a huge difference between giving her her contacts for various agencies that could help or even contacts for jobs and giving her use of a mansion and thousands of dollars a month in spending money. That is not generosity - but coverup of an affair.

[Flying Dream Blues]

83. Your post is a great example of gracious disagreement. Just sayin'. :) nt

[beachmom]

62. Because he wanted to be with her. Hunter, after all, wasn't married. He was.

I really cringe when Elizabeth blames it all on the mistress. Hey, this was between two consenting adults, and it was only John who committed adultery.

[pnwmom]

47. What did I say that gave him a pass? But her

behavior was even worse than his, because she approached the situation with a clear head, knowing that he had a very ill wife and was emotionally vulnerable.

[MonteLukast]

49. Exactly.

Why did he fall for it? Why?

His experience as a lawyer and a politician should have clued him in to possibly being played.

[pnwmom]

52. Think of all the stupid things people do at the "mid life crisis."

Well, he had a mid life crisis combined with another major health crisis in his family. And apparently it pushed him over the edge.

If it turns out that he had a past history of cheating, then I'll feel differently. But if it was just this woman under these circumstances, then -- while I think he behaved abominably -- she is the more culpable.

[MonteLukast]

55. Elizabeth's reaction tells me...

... that yes, indeed, this was the first time he actually went through with an affair.

He had the extraordinary bad luck to have his "other woman" be not a mere groupie willing to put the liaison behind her and move on, but a calculating, scheming loose cannon and a highly skilled manipulator. Who actually was delusional enough to think she could replace Elizabeth.

She didn't even take the time to get to know his other children, extended family, and friends. That's what a person does when they want to be somebody's life partner. They want to fit in their lives as seamlessly as possible, because they care about where the other person has been in their lives. RH displayed no empathy whatsoever-- just pure, unadulterated selfishness.

[karynnj]

80. Her action tells me we don't know

She willingly covered for him even when she knew it and it was rumored than confirmed and she is still partially in denial. Therefore if there were other times - maybe when he was a lawyer and not in the public eye - of course she wouldn't let on.

It is clear that she is obsessed with her marriage being seen as perfect - except this cheating. That is rather like saying the Titanic was fine except the iceberg. In her Saving Graces book, she was writes obsessively about whether her then multi- million dolarhouse was good enough to host the Kerrys. Her house is obviously less important than her marriage. (Not to mention the cruel comments about her choices making her happier than HRC.) This is an insecure woman, who clearly needs her life to be seen as perfect.

[sybylla]

61. That's the problem

Mid-life crisis or no, John and Rielle are both equally culpable. He gets no pass. He made a commitment. He broke it. Mid-life crisis is an excuse for nothing but acting stupid. Just like being a teenager. Or being drunk. He was a responsible adult and could have dealt with his problems, all of them, in a far more responsible way. Clearly he didn't take into account his family or his wife. It was all about him and his poor mid-life crisis.

[pnwmom]

67. You are underestimating the impact

that the ongoing health crisis in his family would have had on him. He was in the midst of confronting Elizabeth's mortality and his own.

Hunter was just a cold-blooded predator.

[MonteLukast]

69. I have noticed, in my life...

... that some of the most treacherous people present themselves as the most angelic, wise, or positive.

[karynnj]

81. If that crisis made him incapable of making good decisions - such as rejecting

having an affair with a party girl - knowing the impact on his wife and reputation if caught, then how could he even think he could function as President of the US.

[beachmom]

85. Bingo!

I am amazed at how so many people on this thread are throwing this all on Hunter. Hunter isn't that clever. She, like so many women who admire or even obsess about certain celebrities (which include high profile politicians), wanted John Edwards. Good men who stay faithful to their wives would resist. Easily. Be flattered, say thanks for the compliment, and move on. Yet he didn't do that. That says something.

[genna]

37. What is fraudulent?

Being aware of the infidelity?

Being aware of the infidelity and not telling the world she has been cuckolded by her husband?

Being aware, being cuckolded, and having children who will bear the brunt of pity/anger/blame/emotion of non family members?

Being in a position of stopping Edwards from running due to the affair and not interceding to block his ambition?


Excusing infidelity and being ambitious?

[MonteLukast]

39. Underestimating the infidelity?

And/or underestimating what kind of a person the mistress really was-- and your husband's blindness as to her true nature?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

6. Regardless of how John and Elizabeth conduct their lives, these

women sound catty and jealous and a tad petty to me. I am glad to hear that Teresa was not involved.

[Inspired]

8. I agree and as someone who has driven in many motorcades for pols,

I am shocked that they spoke of Elizabeth in this way. It was unprofessional and undignified.

[MonteLukast]

24. If those people are representative of our population...

... then it's no wonder both that America re-elected who it did, and that most of the Edwards discussion going on here is narrative-bound, gleeful speculation instead of a cold, hard look at the timeline and the circumstances.

[karynnj]

9. These were not politicians and they were essentially in a private place

As to catty, jealous and petty, what about the comments Elizabeth Edwards herself said about the Kerrys when Saving Grace came out - all designed to reinforce negative stereotypes. She said them on TV and in her book.

Or, what of her comment that her choices in life made her happier than HRC. (That's hubris for you)

[pnwmom]

17. In other words, they are nobody special with no inside information.

Just a couple random people having a nasty laugh at someone else's expense.

[karynnj]

18. Frankly, I don't think the comments that nasty

I find Elizabeth's comments on Teresa and Hillary - publicly made and made for political reasons worse.

Saying that EE was the more ambitious one who was more focused on winning in 2004 was said by Edwards supporters in positive words. Not to mention, many many HRC supporters argued that without HRC, Bill Clinton would not have gotten so far. (there was a 1990s comment that carried it a way too far - I think it was that without HRC, Bill Clinton would have been a gas station attendant. This was followed though by someone - maybe even BC - saying that had HRC married a gas station attendent, she would have motivated him to be President. Even in the 1990s, this was seen positively for HRC.

Commenting that - in a specific current appearance EE looked like she needed her hair groomed is the type of random comment I would think commonplace among people behind the scenes. It is not commendable, but I think, within our own circles, I doubt anyone here has not made that type of observation. Can anyone here say they never, in private, ever said that someone didn't look good? (The fact is that there were articles where Teresa was criticized for not cutting her gorgeous hair that sometimes got out of control. I never saw any printed criticism of Elizabeth's hair.)

The EE comments I referenced were FAR more negative - going to negative characterizations of their lifestyles and character - and they were by the candidate and in public.

[MonteLukast]

22. Something that really struck me in 2004...

... was how the Kerrys and the Edwardses seemed to be such good friends. They seemed to take such joy in each other and that was a huge part of my investment in the campaign.

In the back of my mind, I keep thinking this whole affair would never have happened if they'd stayed friendly with the Kerrys. JE could have hired Alexandra to assist with the video shoot, because he's not sleazy enough to fool around with the daughter of a friend. The Kerrys could have provided financial and emotional support, and JE could very well have become our next president with a clean conscience.
I was disappointed that neither one of them, apparently, took the time to know the Kerrys as people-- but it's pretty safe to say that someone who tries to reinforce negative stereotypes about a person, is not interested in friendship with them or even with knowing them better. Once again, stupid and short-sighted on EE's part. She ought to know more than anyone, you meet somebody honorable who's been your friend before-- you do your best to keep them in your life.

And I'll bet she's eating major crow about her words for HRC.

[northernlights]

32. appearing to be good friends is part of the political game

The Gores and Clintons were supposed to be such good friends, too.

Behind the scenes is invariably a different story. The Edward's were lawyers, and they were ambitious and they were in a political campaign.

Remember how HRC and Obama went at it in the primaries? By the convention, I pretty much couldn't stand either of them, lol.

[genna]

40. Agreed.

I still look at Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton with a jaundiced eye. I don't think during the primaries that Bill Clinton could have come within 20 feet of Michelle Obama without him being told off for the things he said about Barack Obama.


The political theater is based on b.s. stories.

[karynnj]

44. I agree - and the Shrum book likely captured some real

distance between them. Kerry clearly took Edwards because all the powers in the party argued that he could bring the most to the ticket in terms of votes. In a way it made sense that a Southerner might be able to pull in some people who a MA liberal would have difficulty reaching. (Not to mention the media and likely these same powers essentially insulted Kerry in arguing he needed the excitement and charisma Edwards would bring - ignoring that people in state after state chose Kerry over Edwards.)

Kerry was said by Shrum to have been put off by Edwards having a negative gut feeling - which is why Kerry insisted on an additional meeting. Edwards was apparently able to then convince Kerry that he was ok. Kerry was right (as usual) and should have trusted his own reaction - though it would have been hard against everyone else.

[jbnow]

56. What Shrum revealed about Edwards telling that

sad and private story to Kerry twice, both times saying he'd never told it before...it was something I wished I didn't know. I read it in an article and decided I probably didn't want to read the book.
I didn't know Elizabeth had said bad things about people either

[beachmom]

63. Nevertheless, I read that Kerry did call Elizabeth when he was in NC recently.

John Kerry called her several times when she got sick. Unfortunately, the Edwardses were not very good at returning calls.

[MonteLukast]

66. Sad. Kerry would have been a good friend to them.

Even if he did have misgivings at first.

But no, Elizabeth (who's the boss in that family) had to drink the media Kool-Aid (Kool Kids-Aid?) about JK being elitist and unrelatable. She and him would be a real tour de force for health care; will she relent this time?

If emotional vulnerability was a factor in the Edwards' problems, they needed support; and who better to have provided it than John and Teresa? JK and JE (post-Senate) were closer on a lot of progressive philosophies than the media cared to admit.

[JI7]

68. it wasn't the media kool-aid, they were lying about Kerry and 2004 in order to help themselves for

2008.

like the lies that Edwards wanted to fight back and contest the election.

just like the comments Elizabeth made in 2008 about Hillary and Michelle Obama.

[MonteLukast]

70. Now what did she say about Michelle??

If true... Elizabeth, come on.

[JI7]

72. this

<Then Elizabeth Edwards, who was also on stage, jumped in. “I just want to say, cause I’ll say it later and I don’t want to forget,” she said. “You may not be surprised. But I am surprised, and disappointed, in Michelle.”

The audience was shocked into silence for a full four seconds, until Mr. Edwards moved things along by asking, “Who’s next?” >

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/edwardes-take-on-michelle-obama/

[MonteLukast]

74. Was that after Michelle said, "For the first time..."

"... in years, I'm proud of my country"?

:eyes:

Her crack about Hillary being less happy and joyful due to choices in her life, really made me cringe. So many people, especially women, get into a pissing match about who's the happiest and the most positive. Who can have the perfect family life and the perfect lifestyle.

I love Elizabeth, but some of the things she says makes me wonder if she's not a very good friend.

[karynnj]

93. Shortly after, her cancer came back, the Kerrys were on Imus

and were asked if they had spoken to them. They had spoken to Elixabeth, but not John. John cut off all contact with them. Elizabeth in her book spoke of how nice and supportive John Kerry was as she dealt with cancer. Both Kerrys made supportive comments on Imus refusing to second guess their decision to carry on.

There is no reason for Kerry to team up with Elizabeth on healthcare. He is a senior Senator on the finance committee, which is one of the two committees in the Senate which will determine the Senate bill. The more interesting "team" is that the Nation magazine writing of Dean's strong effort to get a public option included, spoke of Senator Kerry planning to read some letters (from Dean's effort) into the Finance Committee hearings' records. That IS a good collaboration. Dean is a doctor and has the DFA and his internet connections to reach people. He also has Teresa, who is FAR more knowledgeable on healthcare and healthcare policy and has the Heinz Foundation (and the contacts with doctors whose research she sponsored). In addition, to get real insight from a doctor who will give him unvarnished truth, he has Vanessa and her fiance. Frankly, Elizabeth is not an expert in either healthcare or healthcare policy. (not to mention, I doubt Kerry was pleased with her comments in her earlier book that she didn't even know what the K/E health care policy was. Now it was on the web, but she was in a position to have asked for a briefing. Certainly not knowing policies handicapped her as a surrogate. (In reality, this was a transparent and unfair attack on Kerry - who had a FAR better plan that Edwards attacked as too expensive in the primaries. Clearly, she wanted to hide that Kerry had a near universal plan, while Edwards had a kids only plan.)

As to JRE and JK being closer on issues - that was only because JE switched from his 2004 programs to programs close to JK's 2004 programs. The difference is JK's programs were in line with 3 plus decades of his positions - they were completely out of line with JRE's votes. Kerry was the life long environmentalist that JRE wasn't. In addition, JK would have had the history to speak of being against corruption - pointing his time as a prosecutor, his work on BCCI and his election bill with Wellstone.

Kerry initially didn't trust Edwards in 2004 - and Edwards proved himself the VP candidate from hell, refusing to do much of what the campaign asked him to do - per anonymous campaign people - but, verified by Edwards who bragged that he refused to use the campaign slogan. Now, when he trusted by almost no one and might be indicted for the types of things that Kerry has hated and wrote the Duke Cunnigham amendment 9which won't affect Edwards) to deny Congressional pensions for, why would Kerry involve himself.

At this point, Kerry is an extremely busy, very productive senior Senator doing a remarkable job making the SFRC a very creative tool to look in depth at foreign policy. From an outside view, Kerry has helped move the policies of Obama in Sudan, Israel, and Pakistan. He also was the one who wrote a bill for high speed rail, that was included in the stimulus package and he will be the person leading whatever effort there is on global warming. He is also one of the people, though not the main one, who is involved on healthcare. He is one of the most powerful Senators - and he is respected by the President.

He gave Edwards an incredible chance and JRE refused to have his back or do what the campaign wanted and then figuratively spit in his face. Kerry has been very disciplined and has not said one bad word about Edwards. That already shows incredible grace. He certainly has absolutely no obligation to reach out to JRE now. You have to remember that not one Senator endorsed Edwards and Feingold had very harsh words for him. It is an understatement to say that JRE has no political future - even the media that hyped him until August 2008 has no use for him.

[shireen]

12. that was also my impression ....

catty. petty.

No wonder Teresa sat up front with you -- she wanted to have a real conversation. :)

[avaistheone1]

10. Jeez, I heard people saying nasty things about Teresa and that she needed a comb too.

These people sound pretty superficial and catty to me.

I think both Teresa and Elizabeth are great women. No one can take that away from them.

[QC]

27. At least no one accused her of having cooties.

That's about the level of discussion in that car--and in this thread.

[karynnj]

43. Not true -

One of the reported comments, on EE being the stronger more ambitious partner has been said by Edwards' fans.

The other was obnoxious, but it was the same thing many said of Teresa - who was usually far more stylish than Edwards. I would be willing the bet that Edwards' friends were making similar comments about the other candidates - especially as ELIZABETH EDWARDS herself made worse comments.

[karynnj]

11. What an incredible experience that must have been

[pnwmom]

15. Are we back in junior high? The quotes from the two nameless individuals

you cite mean absolutely nothing. Just a couple of catty comments from people connected to a rival's campaign.

"Does she own a comb?" No, this isn't junior high, it's elementary school.

[jillan]

51. That's exactly how I felt while reading this.

Some women are just not into the whole glamour thing.
And EE always looked beautiful to me.

[zulchzulu]

86. The events happened. I didn't ask for names. Did you want me to name names?

I don't get what you'd want.

It was something that more than a few people thought about the Edwards campaign and it mechanizations, even back in 2003 and 2004.

I shared a story without getting vicious. You seem to want to go "there".

Have a great day! :hi:

[hedgehog]

25. Once John Strayed, Elizabeth was damned if she did, damned if she didn't

Forgive him? She's a fool.

Divorce him? She's vindictive.

Talk about it? She's wrong for revealing family secrets.

Don't talk about it? She's a victim of every supposed insider ready to dish the real story.



Anyone who is in an intimate relationship should pay attention to the pain caused by betrayal.

[northernlights]

34. dead on.

hedghog nailed it.

[BeyondGeography]

26. Edwards used to have so many defenders/supporters here

Lots of good people, too. It's indefensible how he misled them and that he has refused to own up to the magnitude of what he did here. As a man, he is truly a mediocrity.

[MonteLukast]

33. He probably thinks it's not worth saying...

... anything he isn't sure isn't going to improve his own case.

I'm not sure any of us would listen to him if he DID confess truthfully. Without a willing listener, it's useless to "own up."

How many times in our own lives have we mea culpa'd, only to end up digging our hole deeper? You mea culpa the wrong way, you shoot yourself in the foot. Just like too how many people here, apparently, saw JE's initial mea culpa last August. Ask them how much that confession meant to them.

[Lex]

35. Those comments say more about who said them than about Elizabeth.

nt

[EFerrari]

65. No kidding. n/t

[martigras]

50. I'm surprised at the venom

I'm really surprised at the venom leveled at Elizabeth Edwards. The woman is a victim of her husband's philandering. She has terminal cancer. On that alone, can't we cut her some slack?
As for her appearance, she looks like most 50+ year old women who have been through life's trials and tribulations. I find her articulate, forgiving and focused on trying to reclaim what's left of her life. I contributed lots of cash to John Edwards and felt just as betrayed, but Elizabeth never has been a candidate. She's entitled to have her say. The forgiveness she is willing to extend to her husband can be a lesson for us all. I hope she lives a long life and gets to see her remaining children grow up.

[cali]

57. yes, she''s entittled to her say

and yes, she's had some hard knocks, but in many ways she's a very fortunate person. My ex-sister-in-law, a lovely person, lost her son and 2 nephewa in a car accident; neither were driving. She died of cancer, and she and her husband struggled with medical bills even though they had insurance. She was incredibly forgiving to the boy who was driving the car in which her son and nephews died. He was the only survivor. I tell this story to poing out that every day people in this country suffer the kind of losses EE has suffered. And they do it without the great resources she's had available to her.

I don't particularly need EE to be a lesson to me. I know courageous people personally who serve that purpose. Sorry, but i don't see her as some towering figure, and though it's certainly her right to speak out publically, I don't particularly admire her for it. There are young children involved.

[MonteLukast]

59. Too many people are running with bad narratives in all this.

Coming from the beginning with preconceived notions and trying to fit people into those notions, helps no one. It certainly doesn't get us any closer to the truth.

I make my judgments about RH by looking at the evidence, looking at the patterns in her behavior. I look at what evidence is there on the JE side of things, and it doesn't make sense. Not with his previous patterns, or what his life profile would lead you to expect. And I'm not going to fill in the gaps based on a narrative of John's character in an effort to make sense out of it.

I suppose some may think I'm operating from the opposite narrative: that John is blameless (which he is not). But all of us think we have the best intentions. All of us make decisions based on what information we have available at the time. I'm trying to figure this out, therefore, based on evidence, circumstance, and what matches their prior behavior and what doesn't. Which is a lot fairer-- but probably less satisfying-- than making use of the "lyingjohnnyhedgefund" narrative.

[karynnj]

91. Respectfully, you are doing this more than the rest of us are

"Coming from the beginning with preconceived notions and trying to fit people into those notions, helps no one. It certainly doesn't get us any closer to the truth."

You are assuming that the positive image JRE created in 100% truth and then trying to twist every contrary fact to allow you to continue to the myth.

JRE's life pattern is not as unambiguous as you describe it. The fact is that we are using the best information available to us and we have rejected the hypothesis that JRE had the character you believe he has - and things like the Hedge fund are facts as is his constant rewriting his past. When you can find 3 - all mutually incompatible - explanations of what he thought at a given moment of time, the most likely explanation is that he doesn't tell the truth.

[deerheadgal]

60. I agree

There has been so much bile spewed...and most of it from people who have not read her book or feel they do not have to be informed in order to make a judgement.

[bottomtheweaver]

64. Can we accept that Edward's and Clinton's honeys may have been honey pots?

In other words, plants. May as well add Spitzer's and McGreevey's, too. It seems to be a pattern and it's not like our might intel outfits don't try every trick in the book, and this is one of the oldest.

[WI_DEM]

88. Those friends of Teresa's sound like royal bitches.

[karynnj]

90. Not really - this seems typical conversation and what linked all of

them was that they were friends of Teresa and were obviously passionately involved in the campaign. I bet these are mild compared to comments among similar people in other campaigns.

The comment on ambition has, in fact, been made by Edwards supporters here on DU - and that was as a positive characteristic. The comment on appearance was catty, but was simply on observation made in private that would have likely been filtered in public. (Note that Teresa responded by rolling her eyes - possibly because she was criticized for not cutting her gorgeous hair.

Compared to the politically motivated comments that Elizabeth Edwards made about Teresa - they are innocent, Elizabeth's weren't. (They were also neatly designed that the Kerrys could not even have responded without it backfiring on them - and they had the class not to respond in kind.)

If you are going to make judgments about people neither of know anything else about based on innocuous comments made in private. If you are going to judge them this harshly, why do you not extend the same standards to Elizabeth Edwards - who comments on HRC and THK were far worse than saying their hair was not adequately combed and they were ambitious.

[cmd]

89. I think Elizabeth is preparing a surprise

I think she is setting up John for a divorce in which he gets nothing. She will protect their assets for their children at all costs.
I don't think she will ever trust John again. She forgave him for the affair and then he continued it. The proof will be the baby.
She'll see the babe is taken care of, but the bulk of their assets will go to their children. She will prove to be a better lawyer than
the John.

[eatpraylove]

92. So shall I take away from your post

that people found Elizabeth to be unkempt?

And furthermore, that this is the missing link as to why poor Johnny had to hit that?:wow:

[otohara]

94. Thanks For Sharing

this little piece of fly-on-the-wall story. Women are so damn catty, but I can totally believe there's a whole lot of back-stabbing talk between camps, that goes on all the time. Especially since John also was a POTUS candidate.

Elizabeth probably suffered many a snarky remarks about she being the one to catch the "handsome" Mr. Edwards.

[karynnj]

96. frankly, I assume that Teresa and her friends

were far more likely to think that Teresa's caught the real prize - they thought that way at all. Both of her husbands were/are exceptional men. I really do not see them as jealous of EE.