The American Spectator

Jane| 5.8.09 @ 9:32AM

Edwards has a mental illness called narcissism. It was on full display in the first interview after the affair was discovered with Bob Woodruff. After watching Oprah's interview yesterday it is clear that without serious professional psychiatric intervention, John Edwards is pretty much toast.

ame| 5.8.09 @ 10:31AM

Elizabeth Edwards should have refused to lend credence to Edwards in his campaign
after she learned he was unfaithful to her, but she covered it up and helped him
because she said she didn't want her family to be exposed,
(but never mind the USA and the office of the President be exposed - that's a different matter - any ass can have that job apparently)
yet NOW - NOW - NOW

NOW that the affair is public, Elizabeth wants to persecute Edwards AND expose her family, etc -
NOW but not then... so what is her motive NOW?
Pure revenge? Victim hood? Public "love" in the form of sympathy? Praise for herself as the "suffering cancer woman."

Elizabeth and John Edwards are ethically challenged people.
Elizabeth despises her husband BUT STILL LIVES WITH HIM and takes their "marriage" month by month...????
Elizabeth Edwards is one lost morally sick woman
- she is also solipsistic hollowness...wanting and needing public sympathy for herself as justification for her amorality.
(Just like the trash biography of Barbara Walters whose life consists of sleeping with a million men and making money doing garbage purple-prose interviews, - talk about vomiting!!!)

Elizabeth and Hillary like to pretend they don't know much about lecherous false-blown ego-slimy "pretty boys" who pretend to be men....when, of course, what women should be looking for in a husband and father is a GENTLEMAN -
yet Elizabeth and Hillary chose the obviously sickening characteristics of Edwards and Clinton, which should have had those women running for the hills, but they hung on because they have the same character faults as their husbands -

Apparently, fidelity is everything to Elizabeth -
not honesty, nobility, kindness, respect, a sense of otherness, intelligence, honor, goodness, unselfishness ...
as long as John was FAITHFUL and bringing home lots of blood money, Elizabeth wasn't concerned that he was also arrogant, self-serving, lying, condescending, and a snake-oil lawyer salesman, just like Clinton ????!!!!

Elizabeth Edwards is one confused woman who has made a mess of her life and would have made a mess of the USA to protect herself -
in an interview, she rationalizes and excuses John the Slime -
“We’re basically old-fashioned people,” Elizabeth told O magazine.
“So this was a pretty big leap for him. Maybe it’s being so different is what was attractive.”

A PRETTY BIG LEAP FOR HIM??? An ambulance chasing lawyer who made millions on the backs of others' misfortune and by doing so drove up the cost of health care for everyone else and ruined many physicians in the process?

SO DIFFERENT WAS WHAT WAS ATTRACTIVE??

Doesn't Elizabeth flatter herself - she is "different" than the sleaze ball mistress??? HOW??

The mistress wants the affair, the access, the money, the power, and has no concern for morality -
Elizabeth wants the faithfulness, the access, the money, the power, and has no concern for morality -
ELIZABETH IS DIFFERENT - how? why?
because she was "faithful" sexually, but unprincipled in every other way -
willing to lie to the American people about her husband "St. John"??? when she knew what he was -

Look what Elizabeth would have gained had John been elected or even given a powerful position in government
and what she was willing to swallow to get it -
and only when "it" all became public, did Elizabeth "change" and announce her outrage and hurt and pain
(but being in the White House or a power place in government for her husband and thereby a platform for her own voice would have assuaged all that??????)

Elizabeth Edwards and Hillary Clinton are in many ways worse than the mistress(es)- they both expose the charade of their words over their actions -

- as Maureen Dowd wrote:
[Elizabeth's] still helping her husband hedge on Rielle’s baby, whom she refers to as “it,” telling Oprah that
she has “no idea” if the baby is John’s, and adding: “It doesn’t look like my children, but I don’t have any idea.”

All Elizabeth needs is a paternity test - and NOW the mistress wants to give that to the world- and that would answer her "doubt," but it's easier for Elizabeth to pretend not to know - and I think pretending has been her entire life
with not only John, but herself.

Women like Elizabeth and Hillary are weak, weak, power-hungry souls who allow themselves to be subsumed by solipsistic narcissists and then refuse to stand up to them on moral and ethical principles when they are betrayed -
they take the disrespect and you have to ask why - in the cases of Elizabeth and Hillary ... for personal gain -

It's fascinating that Elizabeth and Hillary (and the Obamas) apparently see nothing hypocritical in their "concern for the poor and downtrodden" when they themselves live
outrageously materially pampered lives and that their extreme possession of material goods is perfectly fine while those around them live in poverty.

Both women are pathetic -
How sad is it that what you ask of your new husband is that he be faithful??? HELLOOOOOO, ELIZABETH!!!

These are women I do not want to know - as a matter of fact despise -

John Edwards and Bill Clinton are socially irredeemable jackasses -
arrogant, empty, paltry, self-centered, cunning hucksters - supported by a huckstering media
and by extension, so are Hillary and Elizabeth,
who put up with being dissed, disrespected, dishonored, disregarded - all to advance themselves.
What else is so sad is that the public also buys what the media shove down their throats politicians like Edwards and Clinton and Obama when they ooze obsequious dirty oily feces all over the place ...

Elizabeth is not smart - she's a conniving self-satisfied spoiled self-centered person - she may "know" the written law as a lawyer, but she doesn't know the moral principles behind it - so much for "smartness," but
she thinks she knows how to milk the miserable situation she helped create to her advantage by dragging all of us through her stagnant pool of ordure.

Elizabeth and Hillary know about men - they know there are "good" men just as there are "good" women -
but they chose men who are not "good" -
and even when that not "good" is thrown in their faces, they want to bury it "for the family" and thereby
excuse it, escape from it, deny it, move on, keep living the high life with the jackass bastard cads still under the same roof -

You would think Elizabeth would be humiliated and embarrassed by her own behavior, but no, she prefers to capitalize on it...(and the proceeds from the book are going to what charity???????)

These women, the media, and political candidates miss the very essence of what is important, what is essential,
what is essence, moral, life-giving, intelligent, tied to divinity, eternally true - and perhaps that's because they all are NOT REALLY smart and why they continue to shove in our faces empty Democrat politicians like Edwards, Clinton, and Obama - and that's why Elizabeth, Hillary, and the media leave thinking readers - readers who have a moral and ethical core - deflated and tainted by their self-centered puerile arrogance ...

Feeble, insubstantial, and morally challenged people like the Edwards, the Clintons, the media , and the empty teleprompter speaking Obama come into our lives, soil everything they touch in order to drive their own power-hungry lusty selves
and when they are caught - when a decent world exposes them - they want to wipe themselves all over us in an attempt to cleanse their unprincipled selves, to hide their real agendas, and leave us wanting them to just go away -
SHUT UP AND JUST GO AWAY - crawl back into their ethical black holes, waste themselves in their empty mansions and hollow selves - leave our Constitution in tact - and take their sour, selfish, and sickening breath with them -

MattSwartz| 5.8.09 @ 11:23AM

Why must we, as conservatives, even comment on personal issues like this? We're kicking a dead dog at this point, I think. It isn't like Edwards is going to stage a comeback.

In my opinion, Edwards would've been the fourth or fifth least bad Democrat out of all those in the primary, a slight bit better than Hillary and Obama on policy, and not of worse character necessarily.

Why all the personal animus? What does it prove? I get annoyed at the reverse when liberals try to make the whole party look like Mark Foley, and I bet everyone else here does too. What makes this any different?