Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Sorry Elizabeth, but I Can't Relate


When Oprah's magazine came last week, I flipped to the Elizabeth Edwards interview immediately. Why was she thrusting herself back into the limelight, zig-zagging the talk-show circuit to pour more salt on her wounds? Reminding everyone that when she asked them to support her husband for president -- with their money and
their time -- she knew full well he'd had an affair that could derail him.

Everything about this media tour was peculiar.


"We're not fancy people," she tells
Oprah as they squish into a sofa in her 28,000-square-foot house. "All we need is a comfortable place to sit and have a conversation."

The couple moved into this "dream" house four months before John Edwards announced his second presidential bid.


His announcement, as we all know now, was virtually contemporaneous with his confession to Elizabeth that "there had been a night."


But even with her cancer, his infidelity, and the death of a son, their magnificent
home softens the blows. She tells Oprah, "it's hard to sit in this house -- even with the things I face -- and think, Boy, my life really stinks."



She recounts the beginning of John's affair in excruciating detail, all the way down to the "pick-up" line Ms. Hunter allegedly used to seduce him. "And then he went to dinner at a nearby restaurant, and when he walked back, she was standing in front of the hotel and said to him, 'You are so hot.'"

And she wanted to know every detail, she tells Oprah. "I'm a puzzle doer. I had some pieces of the puzzle, and I felt it was going to make sense if I had all the pieces."

Yet, when Oprah asks Elizabeth exactly what John told her ("December 30 he comes and he tells you he's had this indiscretion. Did he use the word indiscretion?"), Elizabeth is foggy. "You'd think I'd remember, but it's sort of a fuzz."

I can't relate. A conversation that would be etched into my brain is, for her, a convenient fuzz.

In perhaps her biggest non sequitur, she says John loves her, she's decided to forgive him, and she's giving him a chance to earn back her trust. "If I had led an absolutely brainless life, I suppose I would find that harder to do." What?

An especially revealing moment came when she explained she also stayed with John because she "wanted to protect him. I wanted all of us to come out of it like we had been, so we could keep our story."


Yes, she does have cancer and it's awful, it really is; she doesn't even know how much time she has left. But how she chooses to spend her time is baffling. "Should I be organizing the costume closet right now . . . or can that wait?"

She proudly tells Oprah she spent three weeks organizing her nine year-old son's Legos.

I cannot relate.

But it was her disingenuousness that took my breath away. She prohibited Oprah from using Rielle Hunter's name in the interview. Yet Elizabeth maintains that it doesn't matter whether her husband is the father of Hunter's child. "Whatever the facts are, that doesn't change my life."

Really? That her children may have another sibling doesn't change anything? That her husband may have another child he will need to love and support (and so far hasn't) . . . wouldn't change her life?

Oprah gently prods her: "But the truth is that most of us don't know men who meet women in hotels and hold babies that are not their own." Elizabeth's response? "Oh, golly, then you don't know many politicians. Holding babies is our business."

And here, another brilliant dodge. "Have you asked him if it is his child?" Oprah asks. "He's talked to me about questions people ask. He doesn't know any more than I know," says a slippery Elizabeth.

Does she blame the "other woman"? "I blame John. But I think that women have to have more respect for other women. I've created this life. It takes a lot of work to put together a marriage, to put together a family and a home. * * * You have to have enough respect for other human beings to leave their lives alone."

Fair enough, Elizabeth. But what about Cheri Young? Remember her? Her husband Andrew Young took a hit for Team Edwards by claiming he was father of Hunter's child. Was Cheri shown respect? Or her three children?

And what of Elizabeth's own children? When she goes on Oprah for the big interview, and appears on Larry King, all to sell this book called Resilience, is she leaving their lives alone?

Her explanation for why is she doing
this is hardly satisfying.

She says when she first found out about the affair, she wanted to back out of writing the book. "But then you start to think, Am I going to say I can't do these things, or am I going to take my life back? So although it was hard and in some ways painful to write, it was a statement that I own my own experiences. Nobody else has control of them."

So this is about control? Okay. But what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Ms. Hunter has decided to assert some control and "own" her own experiences, too. After a quiet year, Ms. Hunter has changed her mind and now wants a paternity test. Since Elizabeth has pushed her back into the media glare, this heretofore silent, secluded single mother is pushing back, showing some resilience of her own.

25 comments:

Kristina P. said...

I could not agree more! I saw the interview and she castes the woman as a homewrecking whore, but still stands by her man!

Sodermoto said...

I saw her on the View and she dodges those questions like a true politian's wife. She seems so forgiving on some things and then you can just see the venom oozing from between her teeth on other things. She had said the bit about the child not effecting her life and I was a bit confused on that part too. :) Oh well!

Wendy said...

I can't even imagine how humiliating the whole thing must be. I mean it's bad enough to have it happen but then talking about it on tv, etc. I'd want to just stay in my house and lay low. Well, I'm sure the money is a temptation. :)

Becky said...

Yeah, it is baffling to me why she's doing this, if she has her children's, or her own, best interest at heart. And she says she wants to stay married, but I wouldn't think this would be the best way to do it. Confusing.

And OMG, the Andrew and Cheri Young thing was the weirdest part of that whole story! That Rielle Hunter moved in with them?? I cannot fathom that Mrs. Young let that happen. I would have said, "Sweetie, if you want to claim paternity of that child, you will do it over my actual dead body. So choose." I mean, what. the. hell. You can't make this stuff up.

The Stiletto Mom said...

The whole Elizabeth Edwards thing is just not sitting well with me. I don't get why the public flogging is necessary when she has so little time left. Sad really.

The Mother said...

I DO NOT understand political wives who sit back and allow their husbands to embarrass them. Nor those same wives who think they can write self-help books about resilience.

Gheezsh.

If I need help on this issue, it won't come from a political wife.

It might come from a carving knife. Or a very good divorce attorney. I'm sure you would know someone...

A Lawyer Mom's Musings said...

I haven't seen Elizabeth catching much flogging on her public book tour, save for an errant blog here and there (like mine, though it's more like a wet noodle whipping).

But her public flogging of the "she who shall remain nameless" Ms. Hunter serves no one.

It's hard to make sense of it, unless money or vengeance (or both) are her motives; neither of which are healthy.

Don said...

Great post; I haven't been keeping up with the story. But it's obviously not fiction; you couldn't make stuff like that up! As to her motives; I just haven't a clue but I am a guy so maybe that's MY out.

Anonymous said...

I could disagree more. Elizabeth is taking her life back and not letting the other woman or the media write inaccuracies about her life. It's good for her, and it's good for her children, and it's even good for John. I've been in the same situation but do not have the writing skills or worldwide respect Elizabeth has to elicit a book deal. Oh how I would have liked to tell my story. Not for revenge, not to sully the other woman, not to shame my husband, but to live my life with my truths.
I've read "Resilience" it actually has little to do with the affair; she was contracted for this book prior to her learning of the affair. Bottom line, John is to blame, but we cannot condone women like this who think they can just steal another woman's life. It's wrong.

A Lawyer Mom's Musings said...

Perhaps Elizabeth should call this tiger of a divorce lawyer, Mr. Raymond Tooth. His clients and his foes call him Jaws.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/business/global/26divorce.html?scp=2&sq=Mr.%20Tooth&st=cse

The Dental Maven said...

I am SOOOOOOO tired of the Edwards'. Elizabeth must have her reasons for why she wants to stay with John and I could certainly understand that someone who is dying would want to have her family intact for whatever time she has remaining- but we all DON'T NEED to share in her odyssey. Please Liz, some things are best kept private. In Shakespeare's words, "discretion is the better part of valor."

The Stiletto Mom said...

Oh hi Lawyer Mom fans. Stiletto here, back to clarify that I was not talking about her flogging Elizabeth...I was talking about Elizabeth flogging John publicly. I can't say I've ever been in those shoes (thankyougod) but I'd like to think I'd choose not to air my dirty laundry any more than it's already being aired for the sake of my kids. They will read about this later in life but what they hear about it from their mom in private, should be just that...private.

AmyAnne said...

I also saw her on the View. They would ask a good question and I'd suddenly perk up to listen only to get an evasive politician's answer from her. Very unsatisfactory.

It is all weird. The point is to tell her story? But the book isn't about her side of the story? Then the point is to protect her family? But how is keeping this in the media protecting her family?

Instead of watching it, I think I'll go organize my kid's legos next time I see her on TV.

LadyFi said...

Goodness me!! It's all very well airing your dirty undies in public, but what about the poor kids who have to read all this about their parents?

honeypiehorse said...

Honestly I think I'd be one to stand up and tell my side of the story. I believe it's theraputic to rant from time to time. And I wouldn't be too concerned about making the other woman look good, either. I'm more of a 'other woman burn in hell' kind of gal. Unless it's me, of course. And btw, what is Shreve? It's driving me crazy! I want some. I think.

Skunkfeathers said...

I can't relate to any of this (lack of) class of folks.

Three weeks to arrange her 9 year old's Legos? LMAO. That's important for the subservient public to know. I will rest better at night, and think more highly of John Edwards, because Elizabeth put such time and deep thought into Lego organization.

Maybe I could do a book, "My Screwed Up Lowlife That Oprah Won't Interview Me For Because I'm Nobody...oh, And I Fart, Too".

I unnerstand why you don't relate h'yar, LMM ;)

Anonymous said...

Okay, she doesn't want to live a "brainless" life (ostensibly like the rest of us plain ordinary people) but she compulsively chooses to spend ... weeks?.. doing something as mindless, compulsive, and unnecessary as organizing legos? Here is a compulsive individual with no true guiding principles who has chosen NOT to spend precious time with her children and with those she loves, but instead to chase a dream that is gone gone gone. I's say the book was not therapeutic enough and she needs to engage the services of a professional before she buys another house and spends a zillion dollars on making it suitable for royalty.

smoothie mom said...

It seems to me that "all politicians hold babies who bear a strong resemblance to said politician conducting a secretive hotel visit" is a teensy subset of "all politicians hold babies".
Ms. Edwards is doing this for reasons truly known only to her, and perhaps her philandering husband (all politicians have affairs, after all). Her public vitriol at the other woman seems certain to provoke a backlash, or at least a paternity test, so that is mystifying to me if her intent is to be unburdened and done. I do agree, LM, that she is using a system she knows so well and has lived with the majority of her adult life. I just can't figure out why. I wish her peace.

the Mayor said...

I've tried NOT to follow this story because it is so disturbing and a bunch of WOO (thanks Mother).

What self respecting woman would sit down with Oprah and recite how the other woman lured John by saying, "you are so hot"?
If that's all it takes to lure a man away... and yet she thought he was qualified to be our next president?

the Mayor said...

More WOO. And the 28,000 square foot dream house that soothes Elizabeth's cares away?
1. I'd like to know the carbon footprint for that bad boy. How does that jive with their environmental ideals?
2. It looked like a double wide on steroids, lacking any architectural value. It's interior and exterior design reflecting the vapid lack of class of either of it's owners.
( I know that is a bitchy observation,but if you're going to sell your story on TV then the Mayor may have to comment).

Debbie said...

I've been baffled by the whole thing. I would have gone all Lorena Bobbitt on him immediately had I been Elizabeth. And I sure wouldn't be trotting all this back out. Those poor children. Why do people never think about the kids?

mommyknows said...

They must need money! Just saying.

Elizabeth said...

Just one note on this: I live not far from Chapel Hill, and the week of the Oprah interview, there were a TON of articles in the local paper on the interview. I was surprised at how, across the country that week, people had a lot of sympathy for her and empathy for her situation. But here at home? Oh no. People here really can't stand her. I almost feel bad for her because of the hatred around here.

alicesworld said...

"If I had led a brainless life it would be easier to do?" WHAT? This woman is whacked. Anyone who spends 3 weeks organizing Leggos is whacked. Wacky, wacky, wacky.

Anonymous said...

Not only whacky (wacky?) but materialistic, self-centered and sadly misquided.