John Edwards - Feet of Mud

For the first time in my life, I invested myself, practically full-time, in the 2004 presidential campaign. My first choice for president was John Edwards, so, naturally, I supported Kerry-Edwards.

Before I ever saw John Edwards give a speech, I saw Elizabeth Edwards on C-Span. She was so impressive - seemingly so down-to-earth and sincere - that I began looking at her husband. Like countless others, I quickly got caught up in their family story - their son's death, John's career, etc.

I was very upset when Kerry-Edwards lost the election, and even more upset when the news of Elizabeth's breast cancer was announced. But I was STUNNED to learn that she had a LARGE breast tumor, and had not had a mammogram in FOUR years. - She said she had been "too busy."

OK - Well, I don't like to be judgmental but I lost respect for Elizabeth at that time. After all, she had those two young children, the younger one born when she was 50! She must have taken a barrel full of hormones to sustain those pregnancies and that alone, in my view, probably put her at higher risk for breast cancer. Even if she didn't subscribe to that theory, she should have, at least, had an annual mammogram - because all women her age should.

Bottom line: I thought she had failed her children by not practicing preventative care. She was out on the campaign trail talking nonstop about healthcare issues, but we learned that she had not even taken care of her own health. To be "too busy" to have a mammogram, at least every year, was irresponsible; now it is costing her life.

At the time, I also wondered why John Edwards had not found the LARGE tumor.

Elizabeth seems to be a brilliant woman, but I think she put her husband's political career ahead of everything, including her own health.

I have read about how selfless Elizabeth is because she always puts the needs of everyone else before her own. - These statements were written like this is some kind of a virtue, but I thought she was just plain stupid, considering she had an obligation to take care of herself so she could live to raise those young kids.

I can still picture John and Elizabeth last March when they came out together to announce that her breast cancer had spread and is now terminal. But now, after hearing the sordid story of John's affair, I suspect that news of Elizabeth's condition was music to John's ears! In fact, just the week before, the kooky mistress, Rielle Hunter, had a baby that is probably his.

Sadly, if the National Enquirer hadn't revealed their secrets, this whole charade would have worked out fine for the John & his mistress. All he had to do was stick with Elizabeth for the short term - UNTIL SHE DIES - and squeeze all of the sympathy and good press he could get from that.. Then he could gradually bring Rielle and baby out in the public.

HAVE I BEEN TOO HARD ON ELIZABETH?

All along, I have thought that Elizabeth made a bad choice when she sacrificed her health in order to help John realize his political aspirations. - But now I wonder if maybe she wanted him to succeed in politics as much - or even more - than he wanted to.

And when she made a statement following her husband's confession, she seemed to blame the National Enquirer for her pain. So disappointing!

Knowing how smart and perceptive Elizabeth is, it is not believable to me that she is really buying the fishy story her husband told in the ABC interview. Rather, I believe that she helped him write the script, in an effort to minimize the importance of the affair and try to salvage his reputation.

I would hate to think that they were both frauds... just playing the role of humble, ordinary people, in order to advance John's political career...

But to give Elizabeth the benefit of the doubt, I will hope that her only fault is loving her husband beyond everything. However, JOHN, the husband who didn't find the "large tumor," was not worth her love and devotion.

And don't forget about John's parents; one can only imagine their anguish over this.

An interesting article in Newsweek... http://www.newsweek.com/id/151783 - sheds light on the character and personality of Rielle Hunter.

A May 2007 article in Time reveals that John Kerry had questions about the sincerity of Edwards before he chose him as his running mate.

"Kerry talked with several potential picks, including Gephardt and Edwards. He was comfortable after his conversations with Gephardt, but even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else—that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before—and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again. When they did, Kerry tried to get a better personal feel for his potential number two; as rivals for national office since 2000, shortly after Edwards had entered the Senate, the two men hadn't spent a lot of time together. Kerry also wanted a specific reassurance. He asked Edwards for a commitment that if he was chosen and the ticket lost, Edwards wouldn't run against him in 2008. Edwards agreed "absolutely," as Kerry recalled him saying. If Kerry had shared this at the time, I would have told him what I did later: it was naive to think he could rely on a promise like that. Unlike Joe Lieberman, who'd been plucked from relative obscurity by Gore, Edwards had made his own mark in the primaries. He was ambitious—and if he saw his chance the next time, he was likely to go for it."

And what would WADE think of his father now?