Elizabeth Edwards: The Biggest Lie Of All

The Edwards web-spinners continue to spin (as evidenced by this article in the N&O today - and an upcoming article in People Magazine). The big PR move now is all about damage control - something to stem the tide against the swell of questions surrounding Elizabeth Edwards' role in her husband's cover up.

Just as Mrs. Edwards used her cancer as a battering ram in her husband's campaign, she is using it now as an excuse. And I don't have any respect for that - especially after the snub job I got from her husband (while he was in office) compounded by the blow-off delivered by her friends in the GSO blogosphere who went way over-board with a grudge.

The hand was over-played. This is what I had to say about Elizabeth in 2006 (before the re-run/her relapse):

Where Elizabeth is concerned, on the surface she seems likeable enough, and it's very hard for a woman to be the least bit critical of another woman who has lost a child, dealt with fertility issues, and battled breast cancer. Besides, anyone who does so in Elizabeth's case risks evisceration by the fawning political groupies that seem to follow this power-couple everywhere. Camp Edwards knows that. Revelling a little too obviously in her "untouchable" status, Ms. Edwards recently took on Hillary Clinton, telling Ladies Home Journal that she thought her decisions had made here "happier" and "more joyful" than the Former First Lady and Junior US Senator representing (please notice I did not say, "from") New York.

It was a comparison that fell completely flat with me. Given that I have no love for Senator Clinton, that's no small accomplishment.

As professional woman who is now suddenly/unexpectedly wrestling with decisions pertaining to her own desire for a family (particularly a daughter) . . . decisions pertaining to fertility and her future medical risks/long-term health . . . decisions that were first postponed in deference to establishing a career/practice (not to mention covering the pregnancy leaves of other women), and then to a legal battle that never should have been necessary over a future that was stolen/irreparably altered . . . decisions put off in the naive and obviously misguided hope that one day the law & government would actually do what it was supposed to do . . . I thought Ms. Edwards' comments demonstrated an incredible self-righteousness and insensitivity.

Many women make career vs. family choices. Many woman suffer the loss of a child. Many women face fertility issues. Many woman face their own mortality from one evil, despicable disease or another. But most of those women suffer and face this adversity without the many of the advantages & resources Elizabeth has enjoyed.

And many women make different choices . . . based on their own sense of personal/social responsibility and moral compasses. I expect, primarily for religious and very practical/professional considerations, my own medical decisions will be different from hers. That does not make mine wrong . . . or "less joyful". I prefer to see the possibilities for great joy in the options that remain for me.

Today, from the N&O: As questions grow about the timing of Edwards' affair, Democrats, locally and nationally, have asked why Elizabeth Edwards rallied behind her husband on the campaign trail in 2007 and 2008, knowing of his indiscretion and knowing how risky such a revelation could be had he been the party nominee.

Hargrave McElroy, one of Elizabeth Edwards' closest friends, declined Wednesday to discuss when Elizabeth Edwards learned about her husband's affair. But McElroy said her terminal cancer diagnosis has played a heavy role in all of her decisions.

"Her main aim, I think, in any decision she's made is in trying to keep her family whole," McElroy said of Elizabeth Edwards. "Her health is an overriding decision in that, especially when you've got young children involved. It might be different if all your children were grown. But when you have a third-grader and a fifth-grader, you've got to, above all, prepare for a time when you might not be there.

"Every decision she has made or will make is about the protection of her children."

But there is another side to the story . . . and probably another child to consider in this web of deceit. Reille Hunter's sister (who has shot great big holes through Edwards' "timeline" excuse - offered up as "honesty" in his mealy-mouthed interview with ABC) has this to say:

"The most shocking thing was seeing him on TV give these half-truths, these half-baked answers," Druck Marshall said in the interview posted on the entertainment new program's Web site. "I wish for the well-being of everybody involved -- you know, both families -- I wish he would have just come clean."

"Come Clean". What a novel thought.

Again, Elizabeth used her cancer as a weapon in the campaign - she hid behind it as she made harsh/snobbish comments and judgments about the lives and conduct of others (including Hillary Clinton - and there is a world of irony in that). She could have, in fact, used her cancer as an "out" of the campaign. No one would have blamed her. She could have said to John, "Look, Hon, there are too many things stacked against us right now and we should get out while the getting is good and concentrate on us/our family."

It would have given her husband a few months out of the glare - and time to "come clean" about his affair. Given the circumstances, people might have been much more sympathetic than they are now . . . after being force-fed a pack of lies. While I doubt, given the timing, it would have cleared the way for a cabinet post in a new Obama administration (and please be clear, I don't think an Obama administration is a foregone conclusion), backing off and telling the truth back then would have been a good step in the right direction in terms of political re-hab.

Elizabeth could have kept the family whole AND side-stepped disaster . . . at least disaster on this scale. The press . . . even the Enquirer . . . might have left well-enough alone.

If she had done that, then I might buy the "private citizen" and "privacy" arguments.

Unless, of course, keeping the family whole was predicated on her husband's ego - and wrapped up in his run for the Presidency.

Mrs. Edwards had to have known what would happen if the Reille Hunter story got out - and she knowingly put her kids in the line of fire. Now she wants us to believe that every decision she made was all about their welfare. I'm sorry. That's the biggest lie of all.

Perhaps she wanted her chance at receiving guests to the Lincoln bedroom too?

I have no doubt that Mrs. Edwards loves her children. But I do not, for one second, believe that either of the younger Edwards children will EVER go without - if their parents stay together or if Elizabeth throws Mr. Happy out of "the compound" tomorrow. I do not, for one second, believe that their Father would not play a prominent role in their lives - even and especially after their Mother is gone (and, no matter what Sue Polinski might think, I genuinely hope that is not for a very long time).

These kids are old enough to know that something is wrong. They will hear things at school (assuming they have not been pulled out) and church (assuming they go). They can sense the tension in the house - I'd bet you can cut it with a knife.

What these kids deserve now is honesty. They deserve the truth. They need their Dad - and their Mom - to come COMPLETELY clean. Just like all of the people who ever gave the Senator the benefit of the doubt (and I did) . . . ever believed in him . . . ever supported or voted for him . . . ever gave him money . . . deserve the same thing.

And they/we are not getting it.