Elizabeth Edwards: "I Stayed For The Kids"

Posted by Brian Fairbanks

 

John Edwards, who is a no-good chauvinist who tried to shrug off (clearly) fathering his girlfriend's child as being okay because he "did not love her," at least told his wife about the affair before the press heard about it and her cancer had returned.

In a detailed story by People:

Elizabeth Edwards was furious and distraught about her husband's betrayal, but she decided to keep her marriage in tact, in large part, because of her terminal cancer and the prospect that her children will one day be motherless, those closest to her said. In 2007, doctors diagnosed Elizabeth with incurable cancer.

A friend of Elizabeth's is quoted as saying that the almost immediate reemergence of Mrs. Edwards's cancer kicked her feelings into high gear, and she was forced to confront her future and make a decision ASAP:

"She couldn't say, 'Well, maybe we'll work through this for years, or maybe we should separate for two years,' " said Hargrave McElroy, Elizabeth's friend. "(The cancer) forced her to choose whether to move forward."

"She was struggling with being out there," McElroy said. "She did strikingly less campaigning than she did" when Edwards was the 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee.

"Part of the burden for Elizabeth had been the lie," McElroy said. "She anticipated the great relief the truth brings."

But John Edwards' public confession did not bring the relief that Elizabeth anticipated, the magazine reports.
The confession has been crushing to Elizabeth because of how badly her husband's image has been tarnished.

No wonder Elizabeth privately wanted Edwards to endorse Hillary Clinton: the two are practically on the exact same wavelength about their husbands...

[Via the NY Daily News.

 

Related:

The John Edwards Affair And Love Child Scandal: The Sequel

John Edwards Cops To Sexual Affair, But Says "He Did Not Love Her"

Dick Morris Calls Edwards Supporters Bigots

John Edwards' Love Child: Never Meant to Be


Comments

skyinasmallcage said:

Wait--you have confirmation the woman's child is Edwards'?  You've made it sound very specifically as if Edwards has admitted the child is his and is now talking about why that's okay.  

That seems, at the very least, sloppy, and at worst, a deliberate attempt to promulgate misinformation.  If you have sources that confirm the paternity of the child, I'm sure the news media would be interested in hearing about them.  If not, how can you justify asserting as fact something that has simply not been established as such?  

I don't have any particular stake in whether the child is Edwards' or not.  But the fact is nobody knows.  It's misleading and irresponsible to suggest otherwise.

August 13, 2008 4:48 PM

Brian Fairbanks said:

For a second, I thought you were kidding. Then I realized you actually believe what you're saying.

August 13, 2008 5:08 PM

fridgebuzz said:

No doubt that Edwards is a total dick. To say that the baby is his is just gossip, you have no right to accuse him of ignoring his parental roll. Once there is a paternity test and it comes out positive, have a field day with it!

I'm disappointed that you've posted this false accusation and will now take what you have to say with an extra grain of salt.

August 13, 2008 7:30 PM

skyinasmallcage said:

Uh, yeah...I basically said that people who are in the position of reporting news should report facts instead of misleading their readership.  You find this worthy of mockery?

From your response, it sounds like you do indeed have proof of your contention.  Please direct me to the source.  If you do not, you are out of line with your snide response, and seem to be deflecting the points I brought up because you have no justification for the post.

Again, I could give a shit about John Edwards.  But I do care about responsibility in journalism, even if you hold yourself to a lower standard.  Please explain how your post is accurate.    

August 13, 2008 8:28 PM

Wendell Wilkie said:

Seriously Brian, not only misreporting the facts, but then mocking someone for calling you on it?  Scanner sure went downhill the day you got hired.

August 13, 2008 10:54 PM

profrobert said:

I don't want to speak for Brian, who clearly can respond himself, but my take on the post was that he assumed we all know the allegations and counterallegations (including one from a "friend" of Hunter claiming the baby is Edwards', see, e.g., www.nydailynews.com/.../2008-08-12_john_edwards_is_the_daddy_rielle_hunter_.html ).  Now, the allegations may well be false (the "friend" "lost touch" with Hunter a year ago and is a professional publicist).  But my takeaway is that Brian does not believe Edwards' denial of paternity.  In the context of the payoffs to Hunter from Edwards' finance director, the secret meeting in Beverly Hills, Hunter's convenient refusal to have a paternity test, Edwards' refusal to give a timeline of the affair, and his HAVING LIED TO OUR FACES ALREADY, it's not an absurd opinion to hold.

So yes, paternity is an open question, and yes, Brian hyperbolically presented his opinion as fact, but that hyperbole, I think, was meant to be a humorous way of presenting his opinion.  

August 14, 2008 11:17 AM

bobb88 said:

I found it misleading too.

August 14, 2008 12:10 PM

Mandy said:

I second the professor.

August 14, 2008 12:23 PM

skyinasmallcage said:

@profrobert: Your take is a generous and potentially accurate possibility, except for the fact that hyperbole is marked by overtly obvious, even extravagant exaggeration for effect.  The statement at the start of this post simply replaces an even-handed assertion of the facts with an artificial scenario which never happened but which less informed readers might easily accept without question.

That's a disservice, not creative rhetoric.

Hyperbole is safe from misinterpretation because it does not resemble reality:

"John Edwards, having admitted paternity, now explains that his love child is actually a genetically-engineered cyborg-alien cross incubated in Hunter's uterus but not originating with her DNA.  The child, which is being called "The Chosen One" in the media, is said to bear the stigmata and prefers the sequel to Back to the Future over the original.  Edwards could not be reached for comment."

But the post DOES resemble reality.  If a reader is not familiar with the status of the story, the post sounds like a conclusion gleaned from established facts.  It is perfectly fine for Brian to believe exactly what he wrote.  It's not okay to present that view as actual reportage.  

August 14, 2008 4:54 PM

About Brian Fairbanks

Brian Fairbanks, the Senior National Political Correspondent for Nerve, is a filmmaker living in Brooklyn or New Orleans, depending on the season. He is a heavily-armed advocate of gun control.

in