Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Huffpo: Elizabeth Edwards helped John commit fraud
We posted yesterday on the federal investigation into the PAC controlled by John Edwards, and expressed some degree of sympathy for his wife (though not specified, the sympathy was directed at her health situation).
Huffington Post blogger Lee Stranahan has a little sympathy for Elizabeth Edwards and a significant amount of criticism:
"So let's be clear; in equal proportion to her victimhood, Elizabeth Edwards also aided and abetted her husband in deceiving Democratic voters on an unprecedented scale.Stranahan's point is that Elizabeth Edwards was aware of her husband's infidelity (because he had informed her) before he announced his candidacy for the 2008 election, and chose to keep a good face on their relationship. Is it outright hypocrisy on her part, or some combination of bravery, forgiveness and desire for privacy? What does it say about any political spouse under a somewhat similar set of conditions (say, Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy in 1959-60, though she was not ill)? One thing it implies is a high degree of foolishness, at least in 2007-2008, to believe that ultimately it would not all be made public.
"She helped her husband commit an odd sort of fraud - taking money from thousands of people under false premises, in a sort of personality Ponzi scheme that would have made Bernie Madoff blush. Elizabeth Edwards knew that narrative of the Edwards's personal relationship was a winner with voters and she helped spin it. She was an active part of his campaign and not just for policy reasons."
UPDATE: Elizabeth Edwards became aware of the infidelity immediately after her husband announced, according to the excerpt of her book published in Time.
9 Comments:
By 
, at
Tue May 05, 02:26:00 PM:
Call me a bad guy, but I no more care about EE's cancer than who merits special consideration because they're 'of color', or gay, or walked to school uphill in blizzards, or whatever. She and John have milked that far enough, and her and their family situation isn't exactly a tragic story that few endure.
Politicians are largely liars and salesguys (that's redundant I guess) ... she was part of spinning the lie, so she could share the glorification of that level of power in government. Why else would she stay with such a swarmy piece of crap, or stand by while he was starting a new family? I know the conventional wisdom is 'she was preoccupied with her illness and children', but I'm not buying it. If it were my wife, I'd at least expect her to work on changing my nickname from Breck Girl to Gelding.
John's affair made her vomit ... the Edwardses make me vomit.
By , at
Tue May 05, 02:34:00 PM:
I simply do not understand the willingness of so many folks to accept the Edwards' claim of Elizabeth's illness as fact.
Both are shifty plaintiffs' attorneys and both, as the article points out, are culpable in the hoax. Elizabeth knew of John's perfidy but said nothing. Why would you believe that Elizabeth was not equally perfidious with respect to illness issue. Until we see a medical record (not a certificate that a medical record exists), I assume that Elizabeth is also being dishonest about her health.
By , at
Tue May 05, 03:27:00 PM:
JT, good point about JE & EE milking her illness. Until I read your comment I had forgotten that he called a press conference to announce her cancer had recurred. Not exactly using FDR as a role model was he?
By , at
Tue May 05, 03:31:00 PM:
The comparison with Kennedy is interesting, and shows how times have changed. I have nothing but contempt for either Edwards, but JFK was different only in the class of bimbo (e.g. Marilyn Monroe) with whom he dallied.
Not that that's an insignificant difference, mind you.
By 
Elise, at
Tue May 05, 05:26:00 PM:
I'm not going to argue that Elizabeth Edwards was right to let the narrative be so widely disseminated. However, I'd like to be clearer on the timing. If John cheated prior to his Presidential run, told Elizabeth when he began that run, and assured that it was all over, he just slipped, you know the drill, I'd be inclined to cut her some slack.
Why? Well, partly because the first response of an awful lot of women who get breast cancer is to feel guilty. It would be pretty simple for Elizabeth to convince herself - or for John to convince her - that his affair was the result of her illness (stress, fear of loss, you know the drill). In that circumstance, she might believe it was a one-time thing and was understandable and forgivable.
Did that make it right for her to stand by him and help sell him? No, but what were her other choices if she wasn't going to leave him? Was she an idiot to think no one would find out? Probably although I myself was absolutely convinced the National Enquirer was way off base - maybe she figured everyone would be as trusting as I was.
As for Rielle Hunter, I assume Elizabeth didn't even know the child existed much less that there would be a suggestion it was Edwards' child. I still don't know if it is or isn't - I find it hard to believe that Mrs. Young would agree to let her husband falsely claim paternity - but I can't believe that HuffPo article is saying stuff like:
a woman waiting and a baby with no father listed on the birth certificate [snip]
[Rielle] seems to be biding her time ... seems to be thinking long term ... she loved Edwards.I can't find any interpretation of that that doesn't boil down to, "Rielle Hunter is waiting for Elizabeth to die." Nice.
By Escort81, at
Tue May 05, 05:46:00 PM:
Elise - with respect to your question about the timing of the notification, Time Magazine has an excerpt from EE's book here. She states that she was informed on 12/30/06, immediately after her husband had declared.
By Elise, at
Tue May 05, 06:40:00 PM:
Thanks, Escort81. I read that and checked Wikipedia and while things are still awfully unclear it does sound like at the time Elizabeth was helping John sell his image she believed - was eager to believe - his "affair" was a one-time slip.
By , at
Tue May 05, 07:33:00 PM:
Anon 2:34 -- one of EE's physicians from the UNC cancer center participated in the presser when her BC recurrence was revealed. I'm no fan of either Edwards but I sincerely doubt that EE is faking her diagnosis.
By , at
Wed May 06, 11:45:00 PM:
My thought is pretty simple. Democrats and their MSM toadies let their Democrat leaders get away with this stuff, but expect to crucify any Republican with a hint of scandal; because Republican voters take this seriously.
This is a very strange reality and a hard way to get moral and effective leaders.
Which this country needs now more than ever.
