TV Talk Discussion Group

Topic: In the news - *Eliz. Edwards was in anguish after husband's affair - report*

Oh my GAWD - this is an actual headline on yahoo's home page!  How far does our news really need to go these days??

Of COURSE a wife is in anguish when she learns about her husband's infidelity.  BIG DUH!!  Is this "news" that people need to be "informed" about??

I just hope Mrs. Edwards is avoiding ALL news about this matter, and won't listen to the misguided questions reporters may have for her.  Dear Lord; going through this when you're in the private sector is hellish enough - imagine going through it in the public arena??  My heart utterly, completely goes out to her.  And, actually, a bit to him, too; the way society these days, esp. American politics, punishes you for making a mistake is unthinkable.

Why would anyone in their right mind ever consider running for public office these days?!?

I find it all very disheartening.   When did the fact that powerful or charismatic (though I am not one who finds John Edwards so) attract women become big news?   Why was a President almost impeached when he lied about a dirty little affair?   How does this help the women they are married to or their children?    And must they go on about it endlessly.   More dirt to come, the tabloids promise us. And, obviously, the public eat it up.  They may not understand why oil is priced so high, or why they can't make ends meet, but the can understand "sin"!   They can understand cheating, and so they project their own feelings about it, as one used to do towards celebrities.  Liz takes Eddie away from Debbie!   Liz, wicked woman.  Eddie, how could he!  Poor Debbie.  Now of course we expect celebrities to do such things, so we have turned to politicians as our plaster saints to worship and adore, or tear apart.

I think what John Edwards did was very wrong, but it was his private business.   Once upon a time reporters did not report dirt like this.   Oh, there were rumors and things did come out in the wash eventually when the books were written, but that was in the past tense.   It didn't effect the business of state, or running for office.

Now we have no standards and every reporter out there wants to be the next Woodward and Bernstein, breaking some "big" story and getting their name in lights.   Everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame.   Our celebrity culture is taking over politics now, and that is too much for me to stand, but I know once it starts it is unstoppable.

To run for office now, you better NOT have cheated on your wife or husband, and make sure all of your friends are patriots and that you have lots and lots of money and talk out of both sides of your mouth. 

Even though I am not a big Obama fan (I really wanted Hillary, for selfish female reasons, lol), it would be interesting to see someone take the White House who really did get a lot of money from little people who were looking for a change.  I just fear he might not be the change we are looking for.    However, at least we won't be getting another "legacy" candidate.  What we won't get - and what we shouldn't expect - is someone perfect.   Just someone who makes good decisions and keeps the People first.  For that reason alone, John Edwards made a very bad judgment and thankfully did not get the nomination.   In this day and age, you have to be very selfish to think that it won't all come out eventually.  

I guess I am just getting cynical, but I don't enjoy politics like I used to do.  It has become too much like following celebrities!    And I am always disappointed.        

Replies: (list all replies)

Well said. How is Morris doing? Thalia

It's funny but a good friend of mine was really affected by Clinton's Monica Lewinsky incident. She said she totally lost respect for him. I haven't asked her yet about this Edwards thing, but what do you want to bet she's totally written him off? She's a devout Catholic, and to her someone who breaks their holy vow of marriage like that is the lowest of the low. I don't know, it's just isn't that big a deal to me; why would that negate a lifetime history of noble work? I loved a bumper sticker I saw during Dubya's pres. campaign - *Clinton screwed an intern, but Bush screwed the country.* -SpellingAddict

---

Posted by: Thalia
Date posted: Thu Aug 14 23:48:19 2008
Message:

What really disgusted me about this was the way ALL the cable news channels revealed they are no longer even a step above the tabloids.  Yes it was a news story... once.... John Edwards has ruined his life, and in doing so he is no longer going to be in the public eye as a poliitician, and so after you know that there is no more news... and what is left over is tabloid titilation. Sadly, Elizabeth who I admired so much by going along with the campaign after she knew about the affair (as I understand it) has gone down with him, which to me is the real loss. I admired her greatly... he was slick but never quite rang true to me for some reason even though I loved what he brought to the campaign... the other America.  I could not  quite believe my ears when so many commentators tried to make this personal story about the Democratic Party and even asked if this was going to hurt Obama.  That did not take but there sure were an awful lot of commentators trying to milk this story in any way they could.  It was a pretty disgusting sight.   I have lost my respect for a lot of so-called journalists during the past week and cut way back on my cable news addiction.  Pretty soon I may just give up watching TV altogether, LOL... unlikely but my love affair with cable news has definitely taken a hit this week. 

Replies: (list all replies)

Why is Elizabeth Edwards any less admirable now than she was when YOU didn't know about the affair?! ICAM about the media whoring themselves for every 'juicy detail' of this story. It wasn't limited to cable or the tabloids. Good, highly respected journalists w/great credentials--like Bob Woodruff, were reduced to probing this 'issue' that should never have seen the light of day! Do you have less respect for Jackie Kennedy or Eleanor Roosevelt because they endured & stayed in their marriages, knowing what their husbands were doing? I don't think it diminished those women or made their accomplishments any less admirable. As I said earlier, women married to men who cheat know what they got yrs before the public. Most of the time they knew many affairs ago & made their peace with it. So many of the 'other women' believe that the wives are going to be shocked, dismayed, hurt & run for the nearest lawyer--thinking that THEY are going to land the guy. Newsflash, the ones who DO land 'em usually find out pretty quickly that they are in the same position as the previous wife. By marrying him they've just, as they say, 'left a job opening'. More than Mrs. Edwards, I feel for the child who is, at the very least, going to be able to Google herself in the future & see all this crap for herself. She will see what a manipulative little twit her mother was & how she was nothing but a device to embarass & demean her father in public. What kind of parenting is that?! eom

For as much time as has been spent on this topic it is amazing how hazy the details are. I get what you are saying about presidential wives who kept quiet about their husband's infidelities... but the ones you cite did not become public knowlege so they were not co-conspirators in a cover up. Given the times of slander mongering and the fact that the Enquirer was on John's tail so to speak.. I just wish EE would have put her foot down on his ego and said no way are you involving me and your family in a coverup. I am disappointed that she did not... perhaps lack of respect is too strong a term. Thalia.

But Elizabeth Edwards knew a couple of yrs ago about the affair! It wasn't revealed to her in some tacky, tabloid report trying to pass itself off as hard news w/journalistic integrity! In every account I've read or heard, his family was told long before the media got ahold of it & they were keeping it private. It was the 'other woman' & her friends who chose to go public w/every raunchy, indelicate detail. eom

---

Posted by: Rosebud1
Date posted: Thu Aug 14 17:27:57 2008
Message:
I've never understood the 'importance' or the attention the media gives to public figures who cheat on their spouses.  Clinton wasn't the first &, obviously, he wasn't the last!  We were supposed to 'forget' all the previous Presidents & others in public office that had affairs?!  I'm sure that the list Presidents, Senators & Congressmen who HAVEN'T had affairs is much shorter.

Political wives look the other way all the time!  If they didn't, they wouldn't BE political wives!  Their husbands have hangers on who would do anything to stroke those egos or 'be with' a high powered, political figure.  Why is it OUR business how the political wives deal w/this?  Most wives who have serial cheaters for husbands have, long ago, learned to 'deal' w/things without being particularly surprised, hurt or offended.  It isn't that they are naive, but there are plenty of reasons to stay!  Many of them like the 'perks' of being a political wife, just as many wives of high powered executives w/big companies like the 'perks' & security their husbands' job(s) provide.

IMO, it is no one's business but those involved.  I certainly don't think that a political figure's ability to get the job done rests on whether or not he/she is faithful to their marriage!  I don't think that Roosevelt's extra marital 'affairs' negatively influenced how he ran the country & managed WWII!  Just as I don't think that Kennedy was any better or worse of a President because of his roving eye.

We've had leaders who presented a nice package & at the end of the day beat their wives, children & were pretty twisted individuals--but they were faithful to their marriages.  I'm not so sure that they were better public servants because they didn't cheat!

Replies: (list all replies)

I agree that it really is not my business and really does not change my opinion of the people whether I liked them or not. I still do like John Edwards. I never cared that Clinton had an affair either. Maybe, I am just a loyal democrat ( Of course, I am saying this after I got done with my weekly volunteering with the Obama campaign). eom Mimi

---

Posted by: Kureyus
Date posted: Thu Aug 14 11:00:48 2008
Message:

I read the article in The Enquirer originally last October.  Hubby a devoted watcher of politics blew it off.  Edwards dropped out quietly.  Someone who is blasphemed in The Enquirer sues, remember Carol Burnett sued and won. 

John Edwards didn't sue, didn't dispute, trashed the "tabloids."  Now, he admits the facts.

I have no sympathy for him.  He made his bed.  His wife however deserved so much more than a narcisictic liar.

Off topic, how do you change your name from Lisa Druck to Riehle Hunter?  Don't you think she's the leak to the Enquirer about their affair and child? 

Replies: (list all replies)

she is a pretentious little ho isn't she? and supposedly she pronounces her new name Riley. I heard it as Ree Ell all over the media. Ho thing looks like Donald Sutherland in drag, but he's cuter...

---

Posted by: Mimi
Date posted: Wed Aug 13 23:45:13 2008
Message:
The whole thing is disapointing, because I always liked John Edwards (His "EdWord" on "The Colbert Report" was genius). Being the cynical person I am, I think there are very few politicians that have not had affairs. Some just get caught.

The news media has a way of taking a single news item and pounding it into the ground. It is like an overplayed song on the radio, or an overexposed/rated celeb. It gets old fast.

Replies: (list all replies)

I agree with you; I think the number of politicians, movie/TV stars and pro athletes who DON'Tgive in to temptation when they spend so much time in the public eye and surrounded by adoring fans is very few. Being married to one of them must be hellish! -SpellingAddct

I'm even more cynical than you are, Mimi, as I believe every married man presented with the right circumstances WILL cheat!!! Men are just not monogamous, IMO. eom fuzzwuzz

---

Posted by: Jacke
Date posted: Wed Aug 13 21:27:39 2008
Message:

It's a quote from her best friend talking about how Elizabeth is doing.  It's on the cover of the new issue of PEOPLE magazine.  

"There was anguish – excruciating anguish – for her in dealing with this," Elizabeth's best friend Hargrave McElroy tells PEOPLE in its new issue.

 http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20218879,00.html

Replies: (list all replies)

And I'm sure this article in the venerable *People* (cough, cough) is only adding to Mrs. Edwards's anguish. I don't see anything in the article about her authorizing this *friend* to make these statements; I would imagine she wants to stay mum about it. -SpellingAddict

Maybe she wanted her friends/family to put the TRUTH out there because her husband is still lying and she does't want to contradict him? (He lied in his public statement about when he told her, for example). The entire article isn't included at the link, but I notice from what is included in the short article at the link that her brother also talked to PEOPLE. eom

Sorry, but I don't think that Mrs. Edwards wants every icky detail being made public. If she did she would have done all this 2 yrs ago when she found out about it. She has always struck me as a woman w/a lot of self-determination & pride, but also a woman who appreciates her privacy. This is hardly something someone is doing who wants to maintain privacy or dignity. There are many other, more effective ways of lashing out--an experienced political wife knows how to twist the knife without making a public spectacle. Whoever is behind going to the tabloid media isn't about dignity or family. They are about $$ & selling out friends, lovers & their own credibility. eom

---

---