Elizabeth Edwards
This is not the sort of topic I usually write about, but there’s a New York Times article today by Neil Lewis — mostly based on a book proposal by Andrew Young for a book about the affair between John Edwards and Rielle Hunter. Here is one of the more arresting passages (emphasis is mine):
But a federal grand jury in nearby Raleigh is investigating whether any crimes were committed in connection with campaign laws in an effort to conceal his extramarital affair with a woman named Rielle Hunter. At the same time, Mr. Edwards is moving toward an abrupt reversal in his public posture; associates said in interviews that he is considering declaring that he is the father of Ms. Hunter’s 19-month-old daughter, something that he once flatly asserted in a television interview was not possible.
Friends and other associates of Mr. Edwards and his wife of 32 years, Elizabeth, say she has resisted the idea of her husband’s claiming paternity. Mrs. Edwards, who is battling cancer, “has yet to be brought around,” said one family friend, who like others spoke about the situation on the condition of anonymity, pointing to the complicated and delicate nature of the issue.
The situation may become more fraught, as people who know Ms. Hunter said she was planning to move with her daughter, Frances, from New Jersey to North Carolina in coming months.
The reason I chose the above title is because Elizabeth Edwards is the only person I care about in all this. It’s upsetting me a little that all the blogger coverage of this article that I’ve seen focuses solely on the legal and political implications of Edwards’ affair and the subsequent cover-up and rumors and publicity.
I realize that, except for the people immediately involved in this horrible drama, it’s really mostly of a distant political or (unfortunately) prurient interest. But I cannot help feeling the human aspect, and it’s hard for me to understand why others don’t seem to.
Take this piece by Isaac Chotiner of The New Republic, as just one example (emphasis is mine):
Sunday’s New York Times piece on John Edwards is fun reading, and includes some juicy details about the lengths to which Edwards’ financial backers went to keep their candidate in the clear. Two other things were worth noting.
First:
At the same time, Mr. Edwards is moving toward an abrupt reversal in his public posture; associates said in interviews that he is considering declaring that he is the father of Ms. Hunter’s 19-month-old daughter, something that he once flatly asserted in a television interview was not possible. Friends and other associates of Mr. Edwards and his wife of 32 years, Elizabeth, say she has resisted the idea of her husband’s claiming paternity. Mrs. Edwards, who is battling cancer, “has yet to be brought around,” said one family friend…
If true, this does not put Elizabeth Edwards in the best possible light, although the following detail does make you wonder about Ms. Hunter:
Ms. Hunter gave her daughter the middle name Quinn, and people who have spoken with her said its resemblance to the Latin prefix for five was to proclaim that the baby was Mr. Edwards’s fifth child. (He had four with Mrs. Edwards, the oldest of whom was killed in a car accident).
Look, as far as I am concerned, I don’t even see what “the best possible light” and Elizabeth Edwards even have to do with each other. I don’t see why she should be required to give up her resistance to her husband acknowledging that he is the father of Hunter’s child in order to be “considered in the best possible light.” I understand there’s a legal issue involved here, but why is it incumbent upon the wife who was cheated on while she was being treated for breast cancer to give her blessing? If her husband does not want to admit paternity until or unless his wife agrees to it, why can’t he wait until she dies? After all, according to Andrew Young’s book proposal, Edwards promised Hunter “that after his wife died, he would marry her in a rooftop ceremony in New York with an appearance by the Dave Matthews Band.”
For me, the heart of the matter is this: John Edwards had an affair when his wife was being treated for breast cancer. The affair continued, and resulted in a child. Edwards lied about the affair when his wife first found out (or suspected). Finally, he admitted the truth, but lied again by telling his wife the affair was over, and he lied about being the father of his lover’s child. Now, he is saying he wants to acknowledge paternity, but Mrs. Edwards is supposed to agree to this. And while all this is going on — while her lover’s wife continues to battle terminal cancer — Rielle Hunter is planning to move to North Carolina!! She is moving to North Carolina.
I don’t know, maybe I’m weird, but compared with the human suffering that Elizabeth Edwards is surely going through, both emotional and physical — and the sheer cruelty that has been visited upon her by someone who is supposed to love her — nothing else seems important to me. My feeling is, she gets a pass for whatever she does. She doesn’t have to be reasonable, she doesn’t have to be gracious, she doesn’t have to put herself in the “best possible light.” Just surviving under these conditions is an accomplishment. If she gets out of bed every day and goes through her planned schedule, that’s enough. She doesn’t have to do any more than that.
25 Responses to “Elizabeth Edwards”
The real victim here is Hunter's daughter. Edwards had no cause to complain about her husband acknowledging paternity of the child. Edwards has discussed this affair to no end on Larry King and other talk show to sell her book. How embarrassed can she be? John Edwards is doing his daughter a grave disservice by not acknowledging her. She has legal rights and if Edwards were to meet a sudden death due to an accident or something, the daughter would have to start a prolonged legal process to get her due. Elizabeth Edwards should grow up.
Edwards and Sanford both wanting to bring their mistresses (and illegitimate child in the case of Edwards) into their lives and disrespect their wives to whom they have an oath smacks of misogyny to me.
Brooklyn_Ledger: “Elizabeth Edwards should grow up.”
Yes, I agree with you. Elizabeth Edwards should grow up because she cheated on her husband, bore an illegitimate child and lied to him for years while he was undergoing cancer treatment. She acted like a spoiled girl.
Oh wait…. my bad…. It was John Edwards who cheated on his wife, bore an illegitimate child, lied to Elizabeth for years while she was undergoing cancer treatment. He acted like a boy in a man's body and had quite a bit of fun at Elizabeth's expense.
Tell me again why Elizabeth should grow up?
Elizabeth Edwards sure was not embarrassed about her husband's affair when it came to selling her book. She was perfectly happy to discuss it. The important person here is the child, not Elizabeth Edwards. I don't see how it harms her to have him acknowledge paternity, when she has put the problem in the public domain.
[...] Go here to read the rest: Elizabeth Edwards [...]
Yes, Elizabeth acknowledged her husband's affair.
Why does Elizabeth “need to grow up” and what responsibility does she have to someone else's child? And I don't recall her putting “the problem in the public domain”. Her husband's affair was already in the public domain. Was Elizabeth supposed to pretend it never happened? She's the one who is emotionally hurt and betrayed. Why should she let her husband do whatever he wants when she is not ready for it? Isn't that what got these people in this difficult position to begin with? Where is the consideration for her feelings and why is she not important here? It was her husband who broke their marriage vows that he made in front of God and everyone….
I don't know what's best for the child….. However if I were Ms. Hunter I'd give up on John and hunt for a husband who would also be a good father for my child. It seems to me that Ms. Hunter is hunting for all the wrong things, beginning with publicity, in all the wrong places.
Otherwise the child will always be the illegitimate daughter of John Edwards raised by a woman who places publicity over the well-being of the child, while waiting for Boy John to trade in his old wife for a newer and improved model. The child would be (in my opinion) better off without that lying sack of crap (John) as a semi-absentee father. Doesn't Ms. Hunter ever wonder if John is lying to her, too? And why, exactly is the child's well-being incumbent on Elizabeth's participation in this?
Ms. Hunter is fighting a battle she wants to win for her own vanity and ego.
first and last, I dont see Andrew Young naming his sources for such spin about Mrs Edwards having held back about her husband asserting paternity.
I'd agree with others here: the tilt of Edwards' marriage will likely remain only between them no matter how many books anyone writes. Edwards will assert paternity if the child is his. That the child be loved and taken care of is the center issue of all this; that she will know her mother and her father.
Strom Thurmond and his child/daughter with his black maid, Newt Gingrich and his rounders, Bob Barr, Henry Hyde, the South Carolina Governor, Eliot Spitzer, Roy Roemer governor of Colorado, Gary Hart, and many more… When I've spoken to Governor's conferences and had oppty to hang with the First Ladies, I see deeply that the political marriage is not often like the marriages you and I think about. The core is not what most of us have or dream of in terms of a sort of middle class, raise the children, love one another til death do us part, marriage.
Some of the First Ladies are bewildered by all that goes on and recede from the scene because their husbands are away alot, and they are often introverted and dont have the stomach for the weird plastinization one has to undergo to be part of high level politics.
But, I've seen First Ladies who though face to the world are nice and child-interested, and go to all the schools and the usual 'approved' First Lady stuff, but behind the scenes, their agression and ambion would fry your eyes right out of your head… and you might never guess from seeing them on tv or in magazines that their behind the scenes maneuvers, cunning and being high-hyrdra controllers of others, angry, jealous of others, and withholding from their husbands …literally push the First Guy out the door.
It is a truth. Just my two cents worth.
The child in this situ, may the child be watched over and loved by all.
dr.e
As for the family relations I wish that all parties get the best possible results for their continuing to live as happy a life as they can, after the dictates of law and justice are upheld. Outside of the legal issues and law I feel this is a personal matter for them to resolve on their own.
It's all the children in volved that my heart goes out to. The oldest daughter, who has the clearest understanding of what is happening, must be absolutely mortified. The little ones don't really understand what's happening, but they must know something isn't right.
I've not only lost all respect for Edwards, but for Elizabeth, too. Who airs their dirty laundry in public like that? At least the mistress has kept her mouth shut! If this pair had any decency, they'd determine paternity and agree to support the baby financially and emotionally (Edwards, at least). The child is completely blameless in the mess the adults have created.
Archangel -
You make a critical point. Many political marriages, like many Hollywood marriages, like many marriages of the wealthy classes, may not be based on the fairy tale ideals of the middle class. Often monogamy is less important than successful partnership in some of these unions.
We do not know the nature of the Edwards' marriage. As a result we tend to judge them on our terms, rather than understanding what their “terms” are. The child, with a life ahead of it, matters. Whatever arrangements or understandings the Edwards have, or whatever peace they have found with the situation or how they found it, are between them.
Concerning Dr. E's statement; “first and last, I dont see Andrew Young naming his sources for such spin about Mrs Edwards having held back about her husband asserting paternity.”
That was my question also. . .. just this last week Elizabeth Edwards was on CNN Larry King to discuss health care reform. . .she was not promoting her book. . .at the end of the interview she was asked about the affair and child paternity. She stated a paternity test was coming forth. . .Just my take on her response, there was nothing bitter about her response, but just an energetic tired from it all underneath. . . .
But just as a woman. . . .sadly it seems rare to find a male politician these days that is not politically and sexually overcharged and leaking. . .but as a woman i am always disappointed when another woman betrays another woman and becomes pregnant with another woman's husband. . .
and i hope the paternity is validated and John Edwards takes responsibility of the child in the bond of father and as the financial obligation of his fathering. . .sadly too often that is when we really see what men like this are about. . .
“…..better men than Bill if they formed a relationship rather than just finding someone to release the testosterone charge?”
astute, sparrow. Listened to all variations in consulting room. There's significant psychological difference between persons in relationship and persons pursuing pit stop. Doesnt matter what their marital status, occupation, educational level, etc.
Similar to the confusion about rape being about sex only, (and not equating these two) there's also a falsehood that pit stops are about sex only. They arent by what I see listening to the stories of souls. The driving forces are far more complicated, and unless there's disclosure of intent or purpose on all sides beforehand, it can deeply devolve into purposeful soul vacating (not vacation), soul leaching or theft, and ego 'power over.'
A relationship is not the same either, as serial engagements.
Just my .02
B_L, who ever claimed that Elizabeth Edwards was “embarrassed”? I think you've thrown out a red herring here.
Perahps “embarrassed” was the wrong word. To clear the record, I am not defending John Edwards and Hunter when it comes to the affair. They were both wrong to enter into it. But my point is Elizabeth Edwards went on several talk shows at the time her book came out. She talked for forty-five minutes on Larry King about the affair. Excuse my cynicism but I think there is a difference between acknowledging an affair everyone knows about and talking about it for forty-five minutes especially when you are trying to sell a book. If my husband had an affair I wouldn't be discussing it on television or in any other public place.
A child has the right to know BOTH her parents, and that right is more important than Elizabeth Edwards' discomfort. A woman who gets involved with a man who has children from a prior relationship has to ask herself if she is willing to accept his relationship with his children, if not she has to move on. The Edwards' situation is different because Elizabeth was already married to John when he strayed. But if she wants to continue with the marriage she has to acknowledge he now has a child that he has obligations to, and she must consider from this point if the marriage is worth continuing.
StockBoy, you have used the term “mysogny”, but it floors me when you suggest that Hunter look for a new husband to help her raise her child. You assume two things. You are assuming a woman needs a husband to help her raise a child and secondly you are assuming the child has no right to a relationship with her biological father.
I also feel sorry for the Edwards' children because they are also innocent victims of this, but Hunter's child is Edwards' daughter and she has a right to be treated like a daughter.
Brooklyn. . .i have heard four interviews with Elizabeth Edwards, two on her book, and she explained why she had one chapter in the book about the relationship. . .she said she could not avoid it and be true to her life experience, but in the hour long interview that was the topic the interviews went back to time and time again for that was the media scoop. . .the next two interviews she came as health care advocate, and once again the interviewers where frothing for the titillation of the affair. . . .
everyone has their own lens and i see a different Elizabeth Edwards here that you do. . .
my question was would the media even have Elizabeth Edwards on as a medical advocate if it had not been for the controversy of the affair? parasitic industries within parasitic industries, all the way from what an author has to do to get a publisher and promote it, to how the media portrays it for ratings and shaping of the particular view they want to promote, then on top of that is another layer and even more power and profit issues. . .
i agree with you about the children, that truly is not smoke and mirrors, but the rest of it we will never really know for there is so much shadow dancing and rarely what is see is what we get. . .
But my point is Elizabeth Edwards went on several talk shows at the time her book came out. She talked for forty-five minutes on Larry King about the affair. Excuse my cynicism but I think there is a difference between acknowledging an affair everyone knows about and talking about it for forty-five minutes especially when you are trying to sell a book. If my husband had an affair I wouldn't be discussing it on television or in any other public place.
John Edwards did not just have an affair. As I detailed in my post, he lied about the affair when Elizabeth Edwards first learned of it, then later he admitted to it, but claimed it was over, when it was actually still going on, so that too was a lie. The child that resulted from the affair added another layer of deception, since Edwards insisted the child was not his, and now is saying she is. All of this has been playing out over a period of some years now, in a highly public context which is not Elizabeth Edwards fault because as it happens her husband was a U.S. senator running for President of the United States when the affair began, plus Elizabeth Edwards has breast cancer and her husband was having this affair at a time when her cancer had been diagnosed and she was being treated for it.
These are all details that quite seriously make a difference to the amount of pain and humiliation Elizabeth Edwards has been subjected to — and none of these details are revealed in the phrase “If my husband was having an affair.” That's really a very dishonest way to parse it, if you will forgive my saying so. You, one assumes, are not married to a candidate for president of the U.S., are not terminally ill with cancer (I certainly hope you are not), and have not been the focus of lurid tabloid rumors and mainstream news coverage for months upon months.
I don't think you or anyone who has not been through it can say with certainty what they would do if their spouse had an affair, but it's even more to the point that you cannot say what you would do if your husband had an affair and all these other factors were present.
A child has the right to know BOTH her parents, and that right is more important than Elizabeth Edwards' discomfort. A woman who gets involved with a man who has children from a prior relationship has to ask herself if she is willing to accept his relationship with his children, if not she has to move on. The Edwards' situation is different because Elizabeth was already married to John when he strayed. But if she wants to continue with the marriage she has to acknowledge he now has a child that he has obligations to, and she must consider from this point if the marriage is worth continuing.
I agree, unequivocally, that Hunter's child has a right — both legal and moral — to be acknowledged and supported by her father as well as her mother. That legal and moral truth, however, does not place any obligation on Elizabeth Edwards to encourage her husband to acknowledge the child. She did not have the affair, she did not help create the child, and furthermore, she is f**king dying of f**king breast cancer.
For now, John Edwards can — and should — acknowledge and support his daughter informally, in practice if not in law. He certainly can afford to do so. But if Elizabeth Edwards does not want him to formally claim paternity, she does not have to. Obviously, this is only my opinion, and YMMV, but in my opinion, Elizabeth Edwards does not have to acknowledge anything, or do anything, or meet anyone's expectations at all. Period. The only obligations she has now are (a) to herself, to manage her illness; and (b) to her OWN children, to prepare them for her death in whatever manner she feels to be right and appropriate, and to safeguard their physical and emotional well-being. Apart from that she owes nothing to anyone.
Kathy, I couldn't agree more.
Kathy, yes the biggest bone of contention is as you put it: “furthermore, she is f**king dying of f**king breast cancer”. . . .
I would understand if Elizabeth Edwards would say the same thing that Miss Piggy said;:
” Is there a cure for a broken heart? Only time can heal your broken heart, just as time can heal his broken arms and legs.”
Brooklyn: “… but it floors me when you suggest that Hunter look for a new husband to help her raise her child. You assume two things. You are assuming a woman needs a husband to help her raise a child and secondly you are assuming the child has no right to a relationship with her biological father.”
Well…. it's Hunter who wants Boy John involved as a father to her child. If she wants a father she should be realistic. That was my point. Of course I agree with you that she can raise the child on her own.
The child should have a right to a relationship… of SOME sort… with the biological father. That is why people marry and have children. Unfortunately for many kids their parents stray and it is always the child that pays the price. Hunter should not wait around for Boy John to get his act together, stop his lying ways and then marry her. I said I didn't know what was best for the child, but I would handle it very differently than Hunter. If I wanted a husband, I wouldn't wait for Boy John. I'd be realistic and look elsewhere. If I didn't want a husband then I certainly wouldn't pursue Boy John. That's the context of my statement- that it is Hunter is moving closer to be with (or wait for) John, not the assumptions you assumed I made….
Ultimately Hunter can raise the child however she wants to. I just feel sorry for the kid who will hear lots of nasty things about her father. And Hunter isn't making the situation any better by holding onto false hopes. Maybe Boy John is waiting for Elizabeth to die, as the post said, and will marry Hunter. But that's rather callow and selfish.
At any rate I'll have to think twice before being involved with any man from the Carolinas- Democratic or Republican.
tidbits, “Many political marriages, like many Hollywood marriages, like many marriages of the wealthy classes, may not be based on the fairy tale ideals of the middle class.”
Haha you have that right…. the “fairy tale ideals of the middle class.” That's all the marriage ideals are- fairy tales since many people cheat on their spouses.
I guess the wealthy (and perhaps Hollywood and political) marriages are based more on realism.
StockBoy and ordinary sparrow: Thanks, you guys.
StockBoySF -
Thanks for your reply. We're on the same page with one very minor exception. If the nature of the “arrangement” is that monogomy doesn't matter, it ain't cheatin' within the context of that relationship. It's only cheatin' if you're doing something you promised not to do. As you may have noticed, I object to the use of the term cheating in the context of relationships…unless you know for a fact that other “encounters” are contrary to the tems of the union. In the context of this thread we do not know what the “terms” of the Edwards were or are…and whatever those terms are it's their damn business.
Best,
z of c
P.S. Cheatin' is used in deference to country music because of that genre's unique understanding of this phenomenon as a part of Americana.
I agree with you about getting involved with men from the Carolinas! However, I wish to point out I never suggested Hunter marry Edwards. I forget who said “[w]hen a man marries his mistress, he creates a vacancy”. But Edwards can be a father to his daughter with Hunter without marrying her or continuing their romantic relationship. The daughter fathered with Hunter has a right to a full relationship with her father and not merely some SORT of relationship with her father. This has nothing to so with the parents' relationship between each other.
Oops!. . . Sorry author, moderator and readers. . .
No problem Sparrow. All is well.
dr.e