Elizabeth Edwards=Scum

I have to agree. They deserve one another.

I'm mixed.

First of all, I don't think adultery is the worst thing in the entire world. Not that I'm all for it, but in relative terms, I've always been rather nonplussed by people's careers as statesmen (or women) being killed by this stuff. Take, for example, Gary Hart.. Politically, of course, it is hell to pay. Thus the rub.

On the other hand, given the temper of the times, the info was an obvious campaign killer.
I think... mmm, less of her, for letting this go on, even though I somewhat get why. A thing for destiny over care of the family or the good of the party? Or a simple lack of will to destroy one's husband?

On John Edwards, I'd rather have had him win or lose on his points of view/total package of ideas.

But now trustworthiness enters into the picture - package presentation.
Now, I'm rather sick of mr. slick and the apparent machinations, and I'm not all so enamored of her.

You ignore the book and the media campaign that goes with it. Elizabeth writing this book changes everything about all of the lies she told to support her husband, about all of her money and time she put into John's political career. There is nobility in supporting ones spouse, even if in the end that person proves unworthy of the faith and effort that you have put into them. If Elizabeth had passed silently into death her life would have been worth a lot more than it now is. She ruined herself in this effort to say the last word, to put a hatchet into John.

No, I didn't ignore those - I mentioned packaging and include her in that even though I didn't go on about it.

Slick promotion, with a many dollops of personal agony. Yes, well, a lot of us have that too. I'm not totally unsympathetic, but have no more interest.

And she's continued the embarrassment and unnecessary outside scrutiny and questions, publicity and pain for her children.
I don't know if I think she should have preserved an untrue image of their father for them, but she should have kept private what is a private family matter for THEM- they can't or won't benefit from making it vulgarly public.

This is just pain on top of pain for them. And when she dies, who will they have to turn to comfort them? The father she's just exposed as being and insensitive, cruel and cowardly liar and cheat?

And those little ones are young. Very sad.

I agree. she sucks. Maybe, if there is a just God, the cancer will metastasize through all her vital organs and she'll die a horrible painful death that all the painkillers in the world can't relieve and we can hook her up to a camera and watch her deteriorate and become a rotting living corpse before our very eyes and then sit on our thrones bloated with our self righteous indignation and the warm feelings that will come knowing she is eternally suffering in hell because.....after all, she's got it coming. We've decided.

She having cancer and dieing does not excuse her from her behaviour. Especially because in the past this couple has rolled her cancer status into her saint Elizabeth act.

Yup. I agree. I just wonder who died and made us Nikki Sixx.

Actually, it does. Who the hell are you, anyway?

Well said but over the head of many on this site. I bet someone will agree with what they think is your apparent post.

Nicely said Bear.

Bear said:


Rabel 22 said:


Well, the Nikki Sixx reference went over my head. I know who he is, but is he overly judgmental or something?

She can do whatever she wants, but what's she's doing will be nothing but hurtful for her kids.
And as she'll be gone and not there to mop up the mess in the aftermath (at what will be a difficult time for them anyway, adolesence)- I find it sad.
Maybe she needs the money though - who knows?

Wait a minute! You mean a wife supported her husband despite the fact that he was less than perfect?

OMG! What a bitch!

I think Nikki Sixx = god.

My husband's theory -- she needs her own money so she can finally divorce John.

I'm not convinced.

I'm also not too het up about any of this. She can write books if she wants, and tour to promote them if she wants. I don't think it makes her scum.

I don't think she's a bitch or scum- no. But I do have an issue with her representation of them as the perfect couple - and participating in scamming the American public, when she knew that he was not what he was representing himself to be.

I lived in North Carolina. Maybe that's why Bear feels a little protective of them or her in this situation. But Jesus - if you saw the campaign propaganda - even before the presidential primary - when he was running for Congressman- it was sort of sickening - this perfect, perfect family and him standing there acting like a perfect husband and father and then when he's making his play as a man of substance and compassion and integrity to run the country and Jesus she KNEW what he was doing and she went along with supporting him in the whole act?

I mean, she could have said, 'He screwed up as a husband, but damn I think he'd still make the best president.'
But no.... she maintained the facade until the gig was obviously up and now comes out with THIS when it's to her advantage?

Again, what does this do for her family? For her kids? Now they learn to deny and pretend and then seek vengeance and retribution on someone who you were supposed to have loved at one time (even if they're 'less than perfect').

It's just a sad, sad devastation of a family and the further devastation and destruction of a woman (who's dying). How can she go to her death with any peace in her heart doing this?

I feel sad for her. But maybe she's different than I (and everyone else) thought she was. Maybe she's just a cog in the machine too.

(Of course I haven't read the book - I could be totally wrong).

I don't have much respect for it - no.

Maybe, but the affair was after his Senate career. So I don't get all the hate. A politician selling himself as a great family man? His wife going along with it? Don't you generally ignore all of that stuff? I spent more time looking at his policies. I'm not surprised this is a news story on a slow day, but calling E.E. "scum" seems a little over the top. Opportunist, sure, but who isn't.

I would never call anyone scum...so no, she's not scum.
I can't imagine why she's doing it though. It does seem like such a departure from who she always represented herself to be.
I remember she was just this model mother - her kids came first. And I believed that was true and still believe that to be true. That's why I find this so puzzling.

The only thing I can think is that she is so devastated at losing literally everything (including her life and watching her kids grow up) and she's so ******* angry that he did this and wrecked what she thought was her life, stealing her final years of happiness and humiliating her - that she's decided it's her right to give payback.

Yeah, as I said, just really really sad. I'm sure she's a very, very sad and angry person right now. I know I would be - I just wouldn't air my dirty laundry (for any amount of money). Hell, her kids will be taken care of - he's a millionaire.

My guess is this is cathartic for her. I doubt it is any worse for her children than the tons of truth and innuendo all over the web about daddy and at least it sets the record straight from her point of view. I haven't read it, don't plan to, don't plan on expending any emotional units on it, so I don't understand the reaction that created the thread title. That's where "scum" came from.

People who appear to wallow in their suffering are unattractive, but describing Elizabeth Edwards as "Scum" is extremely harsh.

Mrs. Edwards perceives herself as the role model of suffering and seeks attention (perhaps sympathetic accolades) and remembrance as the grieving mother who lost a child (and yet she survived), as the deathly-ill woman who is/was afficted with cancer (and yet she survived), and as the wounded wife who was betrayed by an unfaithful (victimizing) husband (and yet she survived). Hence, the title of her book: "Resilience: Reflections on the Burdens and Gifts of Facing Life's Adversities." Some people simply thrive on the drama of "victimhood" and all the attention they get from it. It's a narcissistic quality often associated with factitious disorders.

In an interview with Matt Lauer, Mrs. Edwards claimed that she wants to be remembered by her children as a strong (resilient) woman:

MR. LAUER: Let me end the interview with what is the last paragraph in your book, because I think it's stirring.

Quote: "I have said before that I do not know what the most important lesson is that I will ever teach my children, Kate, Emma Claire and Jack. I do know that when they're older and telling their own children about their grandmother, they will be able to say that she stood in the storm, and when the wind did not blow her away -- and it surely has not -- she adjusted her sails."

That's what you want them to know?

MS. EDWARDS: It is. I don't -- as I said, I don't know what the most important lesson is, but I hope it is that when bad things happen -- it's easy to get through the good days -- when bad things happen, you have the strength to face them.

Source: Transcript of Interview

I think she needs extensive therapy far more than she needs a book tour focused on her perceptions of victimhood, but it's her life to play out however she chooses. I simply have no desire to read her book.