Huffpo to both Edwards- Start Telling The Truth And End This Circus

[masuki bance]

Take a simple question asked by Larry King. King asked your wife how she felt when she saw the tabloid reports of your affair. Elizabeth rambled a little about how untrustworthy the tabloids were. Then she said that she dismissed the rumors when she first saw them in the headlines.

Sounds plausible, right? To millions of people, maybe. But anyone who spends a minute thinking about it knows that your wife said something that couldn't possibly have been true.

Why? Because you told your wife about the affair in late December, 2006 but the first tabloid story appeared in the National Enquirer in October, 2007. So - even though you'd told her about the affair months earlier, she dismissed the reports when she first saw them?
...

By acting like she didn't know until we did, she blurs the lines in a story most people aren't following close enough to notice the date problems. And it lets her avoid the really hard questions about why she lied for months to help get you money and votes.

There are, of course, other timeline gaffes that Oprah, Larry and the morning news crews aren't picking up. Real simple one; if Rielle Hunter gave birth in late February, 2008 then and the baby is yours, then the logical assumption is that you conceived the baby sometime around late May, 2007, give or take.

But your wife doesn't ever mention that date because it occurred five months after you first admitted the affair to her. It would also mean that you continued the affair with Hunter even AFTER you and Elizabeth went on TV and said your wife's cancer had come back.

And that would mean that even though you admitted the affair in December, 2006 that somehow you managed to keep it going while you were actively running for the presidential nomination of the Democratic party with your wife's full public support. And of course, you continued to meet with Ms. Hunter even after that.

...

And really, Mr., Edwards- what did you THINK would happen? Was your hope that Rielle Hunter would keep her mouth shut forever? If so, why on earth would you think she'd do that? Because she loved you? Is that what you were counting on?
We're in a world where a former Vice President is on TV defending torture every few days. We face massive problems and we don't need your little sideshow filling airtime. The truth will out. Please do the country and your entire family a small service and just set the record straight.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/memo-to-john-edwards-star_b_202715.html

Wow, he was still banging Rielle after he knew her cancer had come back?

Why is she still covering for him?

[Ganja Ninja]

1. I'd prefer all 3 of them just go away.

Deal with their personal problems in private and leave the rest of us out of it.

[Muttocracy]

87. agreed! nt

[mkultra]

2. who cares. Its their personal life

Hes out and anything that remains is none of our business. Its a family issue now do maybe we should but the fuck out.

[DrToast]

3. LOL. Yes, it's between John, Elizabeth, and LARRY KING.

Who exactly is keeping this a public issue?

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. And Orpah

[rvablue]

17. Don't forget: Matt Lauer and the ladies of the View, too.

And I'm sure there will be more public airings before this is all over!

[mkultra]

18. none of that makes me care any more

whatever her reasons, i still don't give a shit.

[DrToast]

30. If you don't care, why are you in this thread?

Obviously you do care.

[mkultra]

50. i didnt say i dont care

I said i dont care about the affair. I do, however think that people who are making an ordeal of this are fucking idiots and i do care to tell them that. Consider yourself among the numbered.

[cali]

5. A family issue????? uh,no, Elizabeth is appearing on virtually every

big talk show on TV. SHE is the one making it everyone's business.

[hamsterjill]

21. She is making the rounds isn't she?

I have to wonder if this isn't (genuinely) more about selling the book than anything else. Obviously, that's what authors do to get people to buy their books.

But in Elizabeth Edwards' case, I don't think she is particularly enjoying the attention. To me, it's more like she is suffering through it. Maybe she's simply trying to line up her children's financial future for a time when she won't be around???

The whole situation is very sad to me. I had liked John Edwards myself, but boy, what a let down. I don't understand how anyone could cheat on his/her spouse when that spouse was dealing with life and death issues. Where's the compassion?

[cali]

23. The Edwards are very wealthy people.

As of a little over a year ago, they were worth over 50 million. I doubt that the bulk of that fortune has disappeared. I think it's more like revenge on her husband than anything else.

[hamsterjill]

37. Wealthy, yes - but is John employable?

Wealthy people go through money like it was toilet paper. It takes a continuous stream of money to maintain the lifestyle to which they are accustomed.

And with the threat of whether or not Ms. Hunter's child is John's biological child, Elizabeth may be trying to set up some financial stability for HER children, separate and apart from any of John's children.

I think if it were revenge, she would be divorcing him.

[karynnj]

52. Of course John Edwards is employable - he just has no POLITICAL future

He has not been disbarred. I assume if he wanted he could return to being a lawyer.

Not to mention, starting with $50 million, I assume that he could - even putting the money into banks at 2%, get $1 million a year. Even after taxes, they could live well. This is not even touching the principle. Not to mention, they likely would not invest it so conservatively.

They have financial security even if neither makes one cent in income.

[cali]

54. Once your assets are over 30 million or so

you have financial security. And not all wealthy people go through money liek tp. believe me, those kids have financial security.

[hamsterjill]

77. He may have to pay big time

His financial security may be impacted by what he winds up having to pay Rielle Hunter in child support, etc.

Plus he's being investigated for illegal use of campaign funds.

[Raine]

83. Elizabeth is in tremendous pain

it's obvious when you see her on these shows that she is suffering greatly, she's trying to heal. I think she wants her kids to understand how she handled this and other adversities, her strength may help them when she's not there physically to give it to them.

[Colobo]

12. They have made this public and, sadly, they put the party in danger with their "family issue".

[mkultra]

19. i thought the enquirer made this public?

did the Edwards reveal this problem without prompting?

[jonnyblitz]

16. yeah it's so personal she wrote a book about it and is appearing

the talk shows to discuss it! :crazy:

[mkultra]

20. well, your actually ignorant or lying

she was writing her book before the scandal broke. She said on NPR, when asked about the topic, that she felt it would be dishonest to not include the issue considering the revelation.

[cali]

26. sorry, she wasn't forced to wash her laundry in public. she chose

to engage in this stuff and she's going on every tv show available to talk about it. She could have at least used this tv blitz to push the public option for health care, but as far as I've seen, she hasn't.

[mkultra]

48. She is promoting a book.

but shes obviously going on tv to promote her book and reporters cant stop themselves from asking about the affair. Perhaps it was unwise of here to publish a book but if you recall, she is a cancer survivor. The book is about resilience and it may be something she felt was important to do. She is clearly uncomfortable when she talks about the infidelity but it seems to me that she has simply accepted this as an obstacle and is looking to achieve a goal despite. Meanwhile, we sit on the sidelines and judge and dissect her for simply standing up to questions regarding something that happened to her not of her.

i think people are acting retarded about this. Seems to me shes the kind of woman i would want by my side.

[karynnj]

56. Ask yourself why the agreement was to proscribe using Hunter's name vs not talking about the affair

Do you think the interest would be as high? I do think there would have been significant interest and it would have enhanced her reputation, rather than diminishing it as this has.

[mkultra]

57. what agreement do you speak of?

did she make an agreement to leave Hunter's name out of the book or out of interviews.

[karynnj]

63. The interviews - as is noted in every article

[mkultra]

68. i see, your assuming she has the same kind of interview power that a politician has

i think they would tell her to go on down the road. especially since the interviews primary purpose it to promote her book.

[Adelante]

69. Actually, EE did insist Hunter's name not be mentioned

That was made clear before the Oprah interview by Harpo and it's been referenced by other media.

Elizabeth Edwards placed one condition on the interview - that Hunter's name not be mentioned.

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/05/08/2009-05-08_edwards_is_a_cheat_but_perfect_says_loving_wife.html


And the Associated Press has an article saying they couldn't interview her because she wouldn't agree they could mention Hunter's name.

The Associated Press was unable to speak to Edwards directly because of her condition that nowhere in the article could Hunter's name appear.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jyyANm63lKc-RT463T15zBfJqEhAD982U9V00

And the Washington Post has a piece today about it.

Elizabeth Edwards has been willing to talk about most anything in interviews about her new memoir that details her husband John's affair, but only under one condition: Interviewers must agree not to mention the name of the other woman in their broadcasts or stories.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/13/AR2009051303429.html

[mkultra]

72. so she clearly wishes to minimize the affair in theater of the book.

That's another piece of evidence right there that she isn't exploiting the affair.

[Adelante]

74. I wouldn't go that far

She wants to control the exploitation of the affair so that Hunter can't. That's how I take this and from what she and her publicist have said.

Drake said Edwards's restriction isn't motivated by "anger" toward Hunter, but by a desire not to see Hunter profit from the affair. Noting that other notorious figures -- such as Ashley Dupré, the call girl who slept with then-New York Gov. Elliot Spitzer -- have cashed in on their media attention, Drake said Edwards "doesn't want to contribute to putting this woman in the spotlight. She feels that, to the extent the media shines attention on people like this, that we encourage this kind of behavior. She doesn't want to reward bad behavior."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/13/AR2009051303429.html

[mkultra]

75. well, she may also feel that way as well

by it would clearly be in her greater interest economically to drag this out in the light and make a spectacle of it. So in essence, no spectacle, no money for hunter or money for everyone.

[Adelante]

76. LOL - Take your comfort where you may

Elizabeth is obviously dragging it out and making a spectacle of it, just on her own terms. Everyone else in the media is naturally calling out the name loud and clear, which had to have been the expected outcome.

[karynnj]

73. She had the power to insist that Hunter's name was not mentioned

I have not heard of any politician with the ability to set ground rules to avoid mention of ANYTHING. If by they, you mean the publishers - sure, but was it in Edwards' overall interest? I doubt her number one goal is to sell more books. In addition, she may already have said enough that the affair is no longer a reason to buy the book. I wonder if she turned off any of the target market - people who could benefit from a role model facing terrible struggles. A month ago, I might have said gracefully facing.

[karynnj]

53. She has an agreement that Hunter's name not be mentioned, I assume

she could have gotten agreement that the affair not be mentioned - instead it would dwell on the theme of her book. I suspect that she realized that would get far less attention.

[mkultra]

59. she talked about the inclusion of the affair in th book on NPR

She indicated that she was writing the book before "it happened" and since she was writing the book to inspire people to stay strong and weather adversity, it would be intellectually dishonest to not include the turmoil in the book. Now, whether "it happened" means the affair, or the first time they talked about it or the later occasion when they discussed in detail i haven't a clue.

[karynnj]

62. I know that - and if she wanted the interviews to deal with dealing with adversity

without getting caught in the affair quicksand, she could have put not talking about the affair in the deal.

[mkultra]

67. sounds like an assumption on your part

Im content to take her at her word as it also matches the normal path someone would take in her situation. Shes writing a legacy book and its a mission for her.

[cali]

6. I'm sick of the pair of them.

and sorry, my reservoir of sympathy for Elizabeth has run empty. they're both pretty nauseating.

[karynnj]

7. If the baby is his, yes - and that is what people have pointed out on every thread about this mess

I have NO idea whether to trust the Dec 2006 story as being true. The fact is that JRE lied in his confession on the time line. She backed him last August in doing so. I suspect that she didn't anticipate that she would be attacked for concealing this. I suspect that the December 2006 story isn't true - and maybe she didn't even know in March 2007. Had she really wanted to end things in December 2006 - that was a very graceful, sympathetic way out.

Given that EE lied about Obama's health care plan and about other things in support of Edwards, I see no reason to think she would be completely honest here. I think she often makes up her own narratives and then sticks to them. Here, the problem is that web of lies are a convoluted mess.

I would have said this article was unneeded because this is so over, but it is hard to say that with EE speaking of it on prominent shows on a near daily basis. I would prefer they just go away - the "truth" here is really isn't needed - he wasn't the nominee and he is politically nearly as dead as he can be.

Why is she covering - from her words of how her marriage was perfect other than this and the insecurity that came across in Saving Graces about hosting the Kerrys during the election - she is very status conscientious - for all her "we are plain folks" stuff - while there was tragedy in her live, she wants the image to be (among other things) that she is married to a talented, charismatic husband, the 3 lovey kids, gorgeous home etc.

[avaistheone1]

8. This sounds like their personal problem to me. Doesn't this country

have more important issues on its plate?

This story has been hammered to death.

No one cares.

[cali]

11. The main person pumping up this story is EE.

[mkultra]

49. your bashing EE

shes not promoting this story, shes promoting her book. Trash consumers are making it about the affair.

[masuki bance]

79. Good grief. Your name is appropriate for the brainwashing that shows.

[mkultra]

89. yeah, my bias towards democrats is a problem for some.

But its a reality based bias.

[Adelante]

22. I only wish EE would have kept it a personal problem

Instead of reviving the public spectacle.

[Lex]

9. I've completely lost interest in it.

nt

[DrToast]

10. Is that why you posted in this thread?

[Lex]

14. My curiosity was about HuffPo

actually--maybe I could see their reasoning why it's important somehow; but alas, nope.

[mkultra]

51. yeah, this moron confuses care of the affair and care of the circus.

just cast your shiny objects on the ground, it will distract him. The affair is of no concern to me but i do enjoy pummeling the jerry springer audience members who talk this issue up.

[Sensitivity]

13. Just a shame that the PUBLIC SQUARE is being destroyed by preoccupations with PRIVATE LIVES

This is very much an American phenomenon and I am not sure the nation benefits from it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. It is only being discussed again because Mrs. Edwards wrote a book about it and

has been doing the talk show circuit.

[Adelante]

24. Isn't that the guy who was kicked off Daily Kos?

For writing about the Edwards-Hunter affair? I think so.

[NYCGirl]

25. Has Kos realized this guy was correct about all of it? NT

[Adelante]

32. Heh, looks like I answered myself

I meant to respond to your post.

[Adelante]

27. I wouldn't know, I don't much go there

But the name rang a bell for some reason.

I just read on Politics Daily the NE is reporting the Edwardses aren't even living together.

This thing just gets loopier and loopier :crazy:

[benny05]

29. And you believe that?

I guess the point of this thread is just call Elizabeth Edwards, a blogger at this place, a liar?

:silly:

[Adelante]

31. I don't believe or disbelieve

My mind is open on the matter :hi:

A blogger at this place? A public figure at this place is more like it.

[benny05]

36. DU is mentioned in Reslience

about a post someone made to her when she first found out she had cancer. FWIW.

[Adelante]

38. What does that have to do with anything?

I am well aware EE posted deceptively on message boards during the 2004 primaries without revealing her status as a candidate's wife while promoting his campaign. I even have my own idea of the DU screen name she might have used, which I won't call out. I am also aware that she later posted under her real name a handful of times, probably beginning with the 2008 primary season, though I'm not sure of when. It doesn't make her a dearly beloved DUer -- to me -- but a public figure, who as long as she maintains that status, can be discussed like any other public figure.

[Arugula Latte]

70. benny05 -- What was the DU post?

I haven't heard that.

I do remember when Elizabeth used to post here, shortly after the '04 election.

[masuki bance]

39. Do you think she has been truthful?

[Adelante]

41. I have no way of knowing what is the truth

I have seen her be less than truthful in political matters, certainly.

[karynnj]

58. Whether she blogs here or not - and the last post was years ago -

the op outlines things she said that could not have all been true - as they contradict. They are very specific things - like saying her reaction to the 2007 NE - when, in her current story she KNEW of the affair because JRE told her in 2006 - was to give it no credibility does not make sense. She is either lying in her book that JRE told her in 2006 (my bet) or she is lying or completely stupid (which she isn't) in her reaction to the NE article.

Think about it. She knew in 2007 that the NE had its facts right about the woman and published it. This meant the risk of JRE being caught increased GIGANTICALLY. She is lying when she said she dismissed it as not likely.

[liskddksil]

60. Actually in three interviews this week

Elizabeth has said that not only has John continued to live with her while he makes amends, but has been an even better father to his two younger children.

[Adelante]

64. Yes, I heard her say that nt

[benny05]

28. The diarist at HuffPo left this out

Since he links to TNR's Plank:

I suppose Elizabeth is hanging her dismissal of the Enquirer story on a technicality here: In John's initial confession, he said he'd only cheated on her once; the Enquirer alleged an ongoing affair with Hunter.

I think that is more likely what EE was responding to. She is a lawyer after all.

Personally, I hope the other woman does get a paternity test as the burden is on her at the moment. My guess is that John will cooperate fully. I'm not certain why that woman has waited this long, which is something the Mommy bloggers pointed out recently. However, John is out of the country this week working with the Fuller Center in El Salvador, so she'll have to wait until he gets back.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[vaberella]

34. When it's Dems it's not a family issue. When it's Repubs: Palin, it's a family issue.

I don't get it.

[Raine]

84. That's cause reTHUGs always run on family issues

Democrats don't. ReTHUGs just being held up to their own self-righteous standards that they try to foist on everyone else. x(

[Baby Snooks]

35. WWAD?

What would Arianna do? File for divorce, wish the new couple all the happiness in the world, and collect her millions and move on to better things. Which is what Arianna really did. So of course that is what everyone else should do. Of course Arianna didn't talk about the other woman. Because the other woman was a man. And I doubt Arianna would have been so calm about it all had the National Enquirer invaded her privacy at the time. But, well, you know, who cares at this point?

I cannot stand Oprah. I cannot stand either John or Elizabeth Edwards. And I cannot stand Arianna. And I am sick of all of them.

[Clear Blue Sky]

40. What a novel idea... Politicians telling the truth...

[bigwillq]

42. The whole family just needs to go away.

From the public eye.
I know it may be therapeutic for Mrs. Edwards to tell her side of the story, and to make sure she's telling it, and not anyone else, but she's really pimping this story out now. I can't believe she would go on every show and talk about this. Strange.

[Jakes Progress]

43. Me to both Edwards. Go home and be quiet. nt

[BeyondGeography]

44. John's thinking that might hurt his chances in Iowa in 2012

[Adelante]

45. You devil

:evilgrin:

[cornermouse]

46. And here I was thinking this

was an attempt to distract the public and take the heat of Obama and his decision not to make the prisoner abuse photos public. Silly me.

[masuki bance]

47. Yea, in 2006 Rielle was sent after Edwards so that once Obama

was elected he could use this book and the paternity question to distract people from releasing some pictures.

Genius.

[cali]

55. bwahahaha. ludicrous to the extreme.

too funny and too dumb. You mean EE is distracting the public to take the heat off Obama.

Do try and apply a modicum of logic, mouse.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

61. At this point, no one cares. nt.

[Jennicut]

65. I feel for Elizabeth, I really do. But is airing your dirty laundry across the networks really a

good idea?

[Mass]

66. To Huffpo and other media: why do you care? Just stop talking about them.

[cali]

71. As long as EE is pumping up the whole thing

it's unrealistic to expect that the media won't comment.

[JimGinPA]

78. And The OP Has Yet Another Post Bashing A Democrat - What A Shock!

[masuki bance]

80. I take it you support the Edwards' in this.

[JimGinPA]

81. I Have Yet To See You "Support" ANY Democrat

[masuki bance]

82. You have a donor star, take the time to do a search. There

are many OP's I have written in support of Democrats. If you only want to see fluff stories, maybe the "hide thread" and ignore features may be more your speed.

Good day.

[EffieBlack]

85. John Edwards doesn't owe me the truth - or anything else

He is a private citizen and, frankly, I couldn't care less what he does in his personal life. This issue is between him and his family. It's no longer any of my business and hasn't been since he dropped out of the presidential race.

Everyone needs to leave these poor people alone. (And, yes - I recognize that Elizabeth is putting herself out there with her book, but the reason it's still a story is that the public is making it one)

[cali]

88. largely right, but the reason it's a story NOW is totally because

of EE. She is the one that has revived this story, which had been completely out of the MSM for months. So yeah, people are going to talk about what she's PUSHING.

[EffieBlack]

86. John Edwards doesn't owe me the truth - or anything else

He is a private citizen and, frankly, I couldn't care less what he does in his personal life. This issue is between him and his family. It's no longer any of my business and hasn't been since he dropped out of the presidential race.

Everyone needs to leave these poor people alone. (And, yes - I recognize that Elizabeth is putting herself out there with her book, but the reason it's still a story is that the public is making it one)

[Adelante]

90. Elizabeth Edwards is on a publicity tour

And the public is not supposed to be interested?

Sorry, that makes no sense at all.

[marlakay]

91. I wonder if the reason she doesn't kick him out is because

she doesn't want to spend the final years of her life in divorce court or emotionally tearing the kids apart. I would bet they are in separate rooms in that large house and a marriage in name only at this point.

She is only helping him now for her kids. As far as why she didn't stop it sooner during the election? Well could any of us think straight when our marriage is falling apart and we are told we are dying?

I am not saying I think what she did was right, I am just saying I think I understand her fight or flight responses to her life.

John probably lied to her and said he broke up when he didn't, how many affairs have done stuff like that...

That said I agree, tell the truth now and get it over with.

[Adelante]

92. I can understand her not kicking him out

For the reasons you mention and others. Really, every couple has to struggle with that decision when there has been betrayal and reach the conclusion best for their families. I don't fault her at all for that.

It does strike me, though, that if they are *not* living in that house together, which is the latest claim of the National Enquirer, and the Edwardses organized some elaborately staged set for EE's Oprah interview, Elizabeth is likely to lose credibility with the press and the public, and it won't be even a little bit pretty.

I just wish she hadn't done this whole thing, that they had kept their marital problems to themselves, since it had mostly died down already.