Elizabeth Edwards Before Congress: At Least She Wasn't Under Oath

This wasn't a planned post (I'm actually working on something else). But enough is enough.

(Blogger has been having MEGA issues today. This post has been up - then down. Lost, then found.)

The reputation rehab of Elizabeth Edwards, courtesy of "our liberal media", continues - from the News & Observer to CNN. Over the last two days, Elizabeth has enjoyed the benefit of a ton of sympathetic ink. The rose-colored glasses are being passed out en masse.

Yesterday morning, it was reported in the N&O that she would be testifying before a House subcommittee on the topic of healthcare. Later in the day, the N&O "reported" that Mrs. Edwards was dealing with her husband's ugly fall from grace by "focusing on her kids". I read both articles, but put off commentary until I saw something with a little more meat . . . i.e. something that was actually worthy of news coverage.

Strangely, neither link is available/up today. And I still haven't seen anything worthy of the level of news coverage this woman is getting.

Late last night, it was all over the Internet that, while "testifying" before the House subcommittee, Edwards "blasted" John McCain - for his position that "universal" coverage supported by the government is not the way to go (something I happen to agree strongly with - especially if the government gets stuck with bailing out the financial world . . . I don't know if Lady Elizabeth has been paying attention, but I don't think there's enough money in the coffers to buy out all the bad mortgages AND pay everybody's medical bills) .

Edwards was described as "feisty" and "courageous".

The N&O continued the unabashed love fest this morning with an article that re-hashed the talking points of the previous articles . . . laying on the (I'd say fairly unobjective) laudatory descriptive terms with a trowel.

According to those drinking her KoolAid, Edwards demonstrated "leadership" and "vision".

I'm going to beg to differ here on that assessment (and I know it sets me up for a Ghostbuster moment - i.e. to be slimed with the piss and vinegar the Edwardian groupies might sling). I'd like to expound on why.

First, WHY does Elizabeth Edwards, who is not a doctor . . . who is, in fact, married to an ex-malpractice attorney whose past life and accomplishments contributed mightily to the current malpractice mess . . . who, although she is suffering from an incurable illness, has never suffered the consequences of malpractice . . . who, as far as I know, has never reported/blown the whistle on medical malfeasance on the part of a healthcare facility (or crimes committed by healthcare executives) . . . get a seat on a Congressional panel testifying before a House subcommittee (OBTW, she "testified" before the very House subcommittee which should have reviewed and intervened in my own situation - as an NHSC doctor royally screwed - long ago)???

I guess, once again, I am not one of the "right people".

Moreover, why does this woman get all the puffy ink?

I mean, we are talking about a woman whose only claim to public attention now (if you buy her argument that she's a private citizen entitled to privacy) is that she is married to a disgraced ex-politician whose mind-numbingly inane solution to healthcare is to tax the crap out of people who are productive, successful and pay their own way in order to finance the care and feeding of the not-so successful or productive hoards she'd like to add to the entitlement roles (a plan that, if implemented, could stoke a lot of votes - and political power - courtesy of the people with their hands held out). She is a woman who lied to further her husband's political career and her own ambition (that was on full display yesterday). She is a woman who is now taking cover behind her illness and her children. She is a woman dodging legitimate questions even as she seeks (and gets) the limelight.

I mean, I just don't get it.

Let's review. Elizabeth Edwards blew into Washington yesterday on her self-righteous, elitist-posing-as-a-populist broom. She disrespected the process by (1) deviating from her prepared testimony, (2) taking much more than her allotted time to speak (eight minutes over an allotted five minute slot) - unlike some of the rest of us ordinary folks forced to play by the rules, (3) interjected politics into a policy hearing, and (4) ducking into protected seclusion during breaks and after adjournment - refusing to take any questions.

From the article: Elizabeth Edwards didn't draw any embarrassing questions Thursday morning when she came to Capitol Hill to talk health care.

No one remarked on the failed presidential candidacy of her husband, John Edwards, or his infidelity, or the baby of uncertain parentage being raised somewhere by the younger woman who once produced Web videos for the campaign.

My question is WHY NOT???

Why does Mrs. Edwards get it both ways? Why is it that she can, as a "private citizen", get boatloads of favorable news coverage when she ventures out of seclusion/her Orange county mega-compound . . . but no one can ask her a single question about her (bad, ill-considered) choices as the wife of a former Presidential candidate?

And if her judgement was way-beyond-bad there, how might that reflect on her know-it-all pontifications about healthcare?

And OBTW, doesn't all of this just REEK? Because you just KNOW Elizabeth's "re-emergence" on the public scene is part and parcel of a bigger, carefully-choreographed plan to rehabilitate her husband . . . who is still lying (Get it? LYING) very, very low until after the election?

Why is anybody feeding this monster?

Best I can tell, from the lovefest passing itself off as news coverage, Mrs. Edwards did not actually "testify" under Oath in front of Congress. She was on a nine person panel . . . participating (as a "think-tank" pundit) in one of the regular dog & pony shows that House subcommittees put on to appease the public/give us the impression that Congress is actually doing anything.

I'm sick of them both - both Elizabeth and Don-John.

Apart from the fact that, as someone who took a clipload of bullets in public service (like another doctor in the US Navy named Eric Gluck), I think I'm more deserving of some one-on-one time with a House subcommittee than Elizabeth "Queen of the Victim Card" Edwards . . . this husband and wife "team" is still lying to us about what happened and is happening.

Cue chant: DNA! DNA! DNA!

Moreover, they think the American public is gullible and stupid . . . in that if Elizabeth does her own healthcare pitbull with lipstick act long and loudly enough, we will all buy or forget about the hypocrisy and lies.

These two narcissists (one admitted, one not) want all of the perks of public attention & influence without any of the responsibilities or consequences . . . the biggest responsibility being to tell us the truth.

Like the title/"hook" says: It's a good thing they didn't put Mrs. Edwards under Oath.

And if they did, maybe next time, they should limit her microphone time to answering tough questions - instead playing the self-serving partisian shill.

9/23 Update: The links are not working consistantly on this post. I apologize. As noted early in the post, I had a lot of trouble getting this one up - as Blogger was having major issues that day. I don't have time to re-do everything now.