Posted under: American history, Gender, wankers, women's history
Really, how could you? How could you let your cancer return? I mean, way to make it all about you, when we had an election year media circus to run. How could you drive your husband into the arms of another woman and make him have sex with her? You practically threw the woman into his lap and unlatched her bra for him, for God’s sake. How dare you prevent him from using birth control and make him impregnate her, leading to a huge scandal in the tabloids and headlines about a “love child?” Why would you write such disgustingly sensational headlines about your own children’s stepsister, Elizabeth Edwards? What were you thinking? Weren’t you aware of all of the important work your husband has to do, all of the poverty in the world John Edwards has to end?
But, no–you were perfectly well aware of all of the important, poverty-ending, presidency-pursuing work your husband had to do, and you just couldn’t resist hitching your wagon to his star, could you? You–a mere attorney, like your husband–who do you think you are, trying to bask in his reflected glory as a presidential candidate? Your towering ambitions meant that you decided to endure terminal cancer and look the other way at the affair you drove your husband to! Only a monster wouldn’t have ended a 30-year marriage over an affair–but apparently, you are almost criminally unfamiliar with common decency. Now, you’ve written a book–do you think we really care about what you have to say about your life? I don’t know how you can even look your children in the eye. I don’t even know how you could look me in the eye, a perfect stranger whom you have never met and likely never will. My God–your monumental selfishness is just stunning, Elizabeth Edwards.
How I wish you had consulted me, the complete stranger who knows nothing about what it’s like to live your life–I could have prevented you from making such a mess of your family and from having practically taken the Democratic Party, the presidency, and the entire country off the cliff with you. Everyone in the United States knows the exact right way to deal with terminal cancer, a presidential campaign, and an extramarital affair, Elizabeth Edwards. And you picked the wrong way, every time.
The History Enthusiast on 07 May 2009 at 7:14 pm #
Oh, how I feel for Elizabeth Edwards after reading that NPR piece! On top of everything else she’s dealt with, she also gets the joy of being ripped apart by the media.
Good grief.
Indyanna on 07 May 2009 at 9:22 pm #
Agreed. I could never figure out why anybody would want to write books about anyone or anything that hasn,t been gone for a few hundred years, at least, if only to keep the game interesting. And because there is so much great stuff lying around in Bankers Boxes, available at the drop of a call slip. But of all the contemporary things a journalist *could* write about [like people being detained around the world for attempting to deplane while Mexican, for example], why they would want to trash Edwards is beyond me. I read the Dowd piece at a highway rest stop early yesterday, and it seemed like a highway rest stop sort of a thing; your basic drive by anomie. I could already see this blog post, gathering in the distance.
ej on 07 May 2009 at 10:11 pm #
I admit, I watched her on Oprah. My excuse is that I was home in the afternoon with a pile of papers to grade. And I was struck by her comment that she didn’t want her marriage of nearly 30 years to be defined by her husband’s infidelity.
Which seems to be exactly what everyone in the media is trying to do. Whatever one thinks about John Edwards and the decisions that he has made, why she should be held accountable for them is crazy. If my husband were to choose to have an affair, that would be on him. Obviously, in my marriage, I expect fidelity, and so did she. How this may have impacted the presidential race is really not her problem.
I’m really tired of people making wives an issue when someone failed to get elected, but totally marginalizing them when they succeed.
Susan on 07 May 2009 at 10:51 pm #
Well, and “we believe in marriage” but when Democratic dames hang in with their husbands, there is nothing but criticism.
All this discussion about “what does she hope to gain?” It may also be possible that Elizabeth Edwards is not the first woman dealing with terminal cancer whose husband strays — it might be helpful for those other women to know they are not alone. (I had a friend whose first husband left her when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. She lived another 15 years or so, with a very happy second marriage.)
UBS on 08 May 2009 at 1:45 am #
Well, obviously men cannot be held accountable for their actions when their wives, the people who are supposed to be there to satisfy their every need, are sick and unable to do so. Everyone knows that men have absolutely no control over their sexual urges, and to “keep it in their pants,” so to speak, is nearly impossible. If their women aren’t fulfilling their wifely sexual duty, then of course they will sleep with someone else! I think men often try to make it seem as though they need sex in ways that “us females” just wouldn’t understand. Having a mediocre sex life is expected for women. Men, on the other hand, need it to live. Duh!
As for the impact it may have had on the Democratic bid for president, I agree with ej. How is this her problem? (I mean, besides the fact that she shouldn’t have gotten terminally ill, and shouldn’t have pushed John Edwards into an adulturous situation.) Doesn’t she know that she is only a wife?! The nerve….
Erica on 08 May 2009 at 5:47 am #
I’ll admit, I don’t have any idea why wives of politicians stand by them when they do dumb things — typically sexual misbehavior, although that’s just the spiciest naughty thing a politician typically gets into. But I also don’t have any idea what *I* would do if stuck in that situation. It’s quite easy to SAY I’d stomp off and denounce him… but when it comes down to it, would I? Weighing all the personal history, personal investment, personal issues, what would I do?
There’s a lot of complex issues at play; even if you were to conclude that Mrs. Edwards “failed” in some imaginary duty to the public, it’s yet another extreme leap of logic to denounce her as violently as the Daily Beast post does. But that level of bad personal things in combination with a public spotlight doesn’t come about a lot, so it’s unlikely the author (or really any of us) would ever have to face similar choices. We — well, only some of us — are left with sympathy.
Historiann on 08 May 2009 at 6:34 am #
ej wrote, “I’m really tired of people making wives an issue when someone failed to get elected, but totally marginalizing them when they succeed.”
Exactly! Especially when the role of political spouses are uncompensated. It seems to me that the political professionals who ran Edwards’ campaign have more to answer to if they knew (and I’m pretty sure they did.) But, it’s so much easier to cherchez la femme, because you know that Kathleen Parker and MoDo will write nasty columns about the imaginary crimes of political wives!
And can you believe that idiotic Ken Rudin, “oh, I just don’t know what to think?” What a tool, presenting ugly gossip and speculation and asking us to take it seriously.
Indyanna on 08 May 2009 at 7:43 am #
The Berlusconi affair now proceeding in Italy might suggest a different model with no likelihood of a better result: send the bastard an open letter and jump into the bunker to wait for the incoming flak. The P.Ms most recent pronouncement, as reported in Aggiungi ai Preferiti? I dealt with my divorce with class…A seventy five percent approval rating and admiration isn/t bad…
Okay….
quixote on 08 May 2009 at 11:13 am #
I didn’t know about this EE flap. There’s a reason why I don’t read the news.
Now? Now I’m sick. We’ve all gone mad.
Elizabeth Edwards is one of the staunchest, bravest, and most gracious people on the national stage these past few years. How can anyone, even those worms, find it in them to repay her with such slime?
Emma on 08 May 2009 at 1:13 pm #
Elizabeth Edwards is a bad woman because John Edwards is not a better man. Same with Hillary Clinton. God forbid either of them have the nerve to treat their marriage as a partnership in all the bad AND good parts. God forbid that either of them, after weathering the bad, try to act like they’re entitled to some of the benefits of being married to powerful, politically connected men who can help them advance their careers and individual interests.
People are pissed off because both EE and HRC dare to treat their marriages and their spouses like men do: as something/someone available to enable their own success as individuals.
Which is, I think, a variation on this spot-on statement: “I’m really tired of people making wives an issue when someone failed to get elected, but totally marginalizing them when they succeed.”
Historiann on 08 May 2009 at 1:21 pm #
Indyanna–Berlusconi is an especially egregious dirtbag, preying on underage girls and such, but don’t you think that our political discourse would be much improved if we just accepted that marriage is complicated and sometimes powerful men have girlfriends? (My beef about this is that powerful women aren’t presumed to be more sexually desirable…not the marital infidelity itself.)
quixote asks, “[h]ow can anyone. . . find it in them to repay her with such slime?” Because it’s easy and it’s fun to blame women who have no power or decision-making authority for just about everything! We do it all of the time: Ronald Reagan’s “welfare queens,” for example, or the consensus that has emerged on both the right and the left that teachers are the problem with education, and they’re the only people who need to be held accountable in education reform–just teachers, not parents, not students, not politicians or taxpayers. Just beat the teachers, who are after all usually members of two despised categories: union members and women.
So in this world, it makes complete sense to blame Elizabeth Edwards for “permitting” her husband to run for president, when she couldn’t “make him” be faithful to her sexually.
Historiann on 08 May 2009 at 1:50 pm #
Emma wrote, “People are pissed off because both EE and HRC dare to treat their marriages and their spouses like men do: as something/someone available to enable their own success as individuals.” I’d say that’s definitely the case with Clinton, much less so for Elizabeth Edwards. But it doesn’t matter: she’s getting trashed just the same, and she never even ran for the Senate or for president!
It should be remembered that Edwards herself even got in on the trashing of Hillary Clinton during the primary:
This happened in the fall of 2006. “Look at me, I’m a good girl! I’m not an ambitious, grasping monster like Hillary Clinton!” I don’t think that’s any excuse for Edwards to be trashed now, just proof of how women use this against other women even though they are (or may soon become) vulnerable to the same stupid accusations down the road.
Emma on 08 May 2009 at 2:17 pm #
Writing a book about, and publicizing it on the back of, her husband’s infidelity is about Elizabeth’s own financial success, IMO. And who’s to say that Elizabeth didn’t have her own ambitions to use the position of First Lady to advance her own professional/personal agendas? And that the “look at me I’m a good girl” wasn’t about advancing her own ambitions?
More power to her if any of that is the case. I’d like her a whole lot better if she campaigned for John at least partly out of her own ambitions.
Somewhat relatedly, I read an article in Ms. discussing critiques of the Clintons’ marriage. The author asked: “So, what if they did have a deal: you’re President first and then me, what’s wrong with that? Why isn’t that equality rather than Hillary being selfish and grasping?”
I really hope that was the deal between the Clintons. That would be great, IMO. I mean, geez, wouldn’t you want a relationship where you shared the same interest in the same career, the same intellectual and political approach to that career, and the same dedication to advancing each other’s career in agreed upon ways? Really, what could be better? Wouldn’t that look a lot like equality?
No, it was Hillary being uppity and using her marriage for her own purposes. And here’s Elizabeth doing the same thing: using her marriage and John’s infidelity to it to make a buck.
Historiann on 08 May 2009 at 2:28 pm #
Emma–agreed. I still think it was unfortunate for Elizabeth Edwards to run the same script against Hillary Clinton. But–you’re exactly right. Why shouldn’t EE get something out of her life? It seems like being able to tell the story from her point of view is pretty small beer.
IMHO, the people who were angry about the “deal” (real or imaginary) between the Clintons are just angry that they didn’t negotiate better terms for their own marraiges. Sheesh–only women can make their own poor planning and inability to drive a hard bargain a virtue, and brag about it! Pretty stupid if you ask me.
Emma on 08 May 2009 at 3:14 pm #
Agreed as to all. And very well-stated, IMHO.
quixote on 10 May 2009 at 11:29 am #
(Well, as I’ve said before, I live under a rock, so I was unaware of the point that EE knew about the infidelity crap at a time when it could have put some honesty into the election campaigns. I wouldn’t blame her for keeping quiet then, that’s her business, but combined with letting Hillary be trashed, and starting to speak when there’s money in it but it won’t help the country one damn bit . . . well, . . . . My opinion of Elizabeth is a lot lower that it was, although still alpine compared to my opinion of her husband.)
cgeye on 11 May 2009 at 9:39 am #
Y’all don’t see the big picture, do you?
What’s revving up, this week? The discussions toward a national healthcare plan.
Who would be one hell of an advocate, despite the dive they had to take because of the public handling of the affair? Both of the Edwards. Don’t tell me the timing of the rumors wasn’t coincidental with getting him off the ticket, and don’t tell me this explosion of hatred for Mrs. Edwards isn’t a way to keep her extremely cogent and relevant experiences with cancer *and* healthcare off the news cycle. It’s much easier to call her a bitch, than to consider the stress fighting cancer puts on a marriage, with and without adequate healthcare coverage.
They don’t want another HRC, able to stand alone from her man, stronger because there are women who went through the same fire and now empathize with someone making her own life, whether or not she chose separation, divorce or coverup. They don’t want someone who is stronger than they are, albeit flawed like us, too, saying how she overcome. The Village only approves so many heroes per quarter, and she’s no longer on the list.
Lori on 11 May 2009 at 10:03 am #
I have no idea why Elizabeth should disrupt almost all the best things in her life because John made a mistake. Elizabeth and John are totally tied into each other’s families and careers. They have young children together. They have an entire network of friends and family that they spend time with together, and enjoy spending time with together. Elizabeth is supposed to walk away from all of that because John screwed up.
This isn’t high school. For John and Elizabeth, as for most middle aged couples, there is much more at stake than the very shallow perception of dignity. Divorce, later in life, is so extremely painful because so many of the deeply loved rituals of one’s life are lost as well. The family jokes, the family pet, the family photo album becomes oddly meaningless. Holidays minus the people you have celebrated with for 30 years seem like a joke. All the things that you’ve enjoyed together simply vanish. Life after a divorce always seems so oddly sterile. Life after a divorce after 30 years of marriage is life bereft of lot of the touchstones one has depended upon.
Women don’t leave husbands who fool around because there is much, much, much more to a good marriage than sexual fidelity and a tremendous amount of work goes into creating a vibrant relationship. I have to wonder if any of these people rattling on about this stuff have a worthwhile marriage.
Historiann on 11 May 2009 at 1:08 pm #
Thanks for stopping by to comment, cgeye and Lori. Lori, I agree with you entirely that people who have been married for 30 years have complexly interwoven lives, and that it’s probably more likely than not that people in those circumstances stay married than not. The people in Washington and in the national media who are tsk-tsking Elizabeth Edwards act like they don’t know this–and I don’t believe this for a second. (What are they–children?) But Edwards’ book permits them to run with a popular narrative, which is that “Democratic politicians are the ones with sex scandals,” so adulterous old coots like George Will and Richard Cohen can concern troll away about the Edwards children and the fate of the Republic, etc.
cgeye–some might say you’re conspiracy-minded, but I say you might be a genius savant! It will be interesting to follow the health care reform debates and to see what role (if any) Elizabeth Edwards takes and how she is received. It will be too bad if her book publicity tour has the effect of neutering her on this issue.