Posted on 05/10/2009 2:56:37 AM PDT by Scanian
John and Elizabeth Edwards have proven themselves the perfect match. On the one hand, you've got a lying, hypocritical, power-hungry narcissist. And then there's her husband.
Yes, I've heard that she has cancer. I think it might have been mentioned on the campaign trail once or twice, in 2008. "Vote for me, my wife has cancer!" Actually, the argument was more sophisticated than that. It was, "My wife has cancer, so I'm an expert on health care, so the federal government should take over health, I'm really sorry I voted for the war, subject of course to changing conditions on the ground. Vote for me!" Though her cancer is terminal, she still has admirable personal strength and a vision of her family's future. She writes that she dreams of living long enough to see her youngest child, born in 2000, graduate from high school, and I hope she lives much longer than that.
But because the Clintons bounced back politically from Bill's adultery, she thinks she and her husband are going to do the same. The Edwardses are the only two people in America who still think he has a chance to be elected to any office higher than greeter at the Hustler club. Still envisioning herself as First Lady, she lards her book "Resilience" with slogans about "Being a small part of a collective effort that might change things," "Fighting for causes more important than any of us" and "a more just world" in which John's campaign donors are contributors to "his antipoverty work."
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Scary folks.
Cry me a river!
She has already been paid her sympathy in full.
She demonstrated no forgiveness for others. If she had given them undeserved mercy, she would have come out looking truly Christ-like. Instead, she hissed, stamped her feet, and wrote a ridiculous puff piece about herself where she called the mistress "pathetic" and never mentioned any care or sympathy for Edward's child (who is innocent in all of this).
mark
Don’t forget the Republican guy living near their 28,000 sq ft house & property, whom she sicced the media on and tried to run him out of the county.
STill, the Edwards would have been preferable to obamma lamma ding dong.
Nasty vile first couple sentences. This author is nasty. I did not even get past the third sentence. Can you imagine if they had done this story on Laura Bush (if she had cancer)...We would be in an uproar. Again it might get to the truth later in the story but I did not have the stomach to read it after the author made fun of her for having cancer. Cheap shot and hopefully conservatives don’t agree with laughing at cancer patients.
Nap, jeez, you would not know ‘vile & nasty’ if it bit you on the nose! The Edwards are nothing more than grifters! They’ve made a living with a vile and nasty propensity to victimize the ‘victims’.
Elizabeth Edwards relied on the fact that decent people are reluctant to criticize or question somebody who's suffering from a deadly disease.
She used cancer to gain sympathy and deflect criticism and support her husband's campaign, all the time relying on people like you to get away with it.
Now that's vile and nasty.
The word "collective" is a buzz word for communist. Zero didn't bother much with buzz words, he pretty much said,"I'm a communist, vote for me" and people did.
Another 'untouchable' victim, as Ann Coulter has pointed out. Attack their statements, and get broadsided for attacking the 'poor victim'.
I don't wish anyone ill, much less terminal cancer, but that is not a qualification for her spouse to hold office.
She should have to take Britain’s level of National Health Care anonymously. She would probably already be dead.
That is what I think of her and anyone else that wants to take away the great health care system that we have.
If you have lost someone to cancer or if you know someone who does have cancer, you should be aware that we would be about fifteen years ahead of where we are if we did not have such restrictive regulations imposed by the FDA.
My question to you, is how cruel is anyone who is in favor of imposing these restrictive regulations, cancer patient or not? How many needless deaths and suffering has her restrictive government regulations caused already?
LOL!
I guess her terminal cancer is not very aggressive??? /justasking
She’s been “dying” since 2003. At what point does “dying” of cancer turn into “surviving” cancer? When you’re 92?
My sister-in-law died of breast cancer 8 years after the initial diagnosis.
"You Too Can Bounce Back from Adultery And Profit in The Process."
My guess is Eddie's income has dropped like a rock----and he needs money for legal fees. Plus the upkeep on that monstrosity of a house they built must be enormous.
Nails it.
Plus the fact that she was asking for campaign contribution knowing he was not fit to be president.....she was intensely raising money knowing Eddie was going to be exposed as a liar and a cad.
I’m very sorry. That would make the answer to my question “Quite a very long time.”
She and her husband practice shamelessness on a regular basis in front of a very large mirror. What a piece of work this woman is flaunting her dirty laundry in public for sympathy because she chose a bad husband. Money she wants money.
If Laura behaved this way, she would deserve it. And we would be wishing for W to just shut up, go away and not run for office again.
I don't wish to be indelicate, but I interpreted Tax Chick's question as how long after a recurrance does one tend to live.
Elizabeth was originally diagnosed in 2004. The cancer recurred in 2007 and had spread. 3 years later she's not wasting away, looking ill.
I wouldn't question the health of ANY other cancer survivor, but I suspect the Edwards' made things sound worse than they were for sympathy and votes.
If she passes this week, I'll feel like a jerk for this post.
The median survival rate for a breast cancer recurrance that is distant (outside the breast, which would include bones), is 2.2 years.
Given the information we have, Elizabeth would seem to be on the short side of life.
I seem to be living a year ahead of myself. As it is 2009, Elizabeth's recurrence occurred 2 years and 2 months ago.
I have no respect for either of them and it really bothers me that she wanted to leave this behind for her children to read when they are older. It’s unthinkable to me that she would do that to them and IMHO shows me that they both value money and power over their family.
The Edwards have been pretty much ‘takers’ in their publicity? From Silky as an attorney bilking million$ in fraudulent medical malpractice lawsuits and now Elizabeth making hay over her cancer and victim of an affair. What have they contributed other than grabbing fame and fortune from sordid behaviors? Gained the whole world and lost their soul types is what they are!
Ordinarily, I would pass over this whole topic when I got to the writer’s ‘Look at me I’ve got cancer!’ line...but there is something so pandering about Mrs. Edwards and this whole sorry affair.
I believe the Edwards’ deserve each. I do. They are both users of others (be they other’s misfortunes; misguided sympathies; or political leanings). They are, IMO, every bit as narcissitic as the two current inhabitants of the White House. They, apparently have no regard for the current emotional well being of their (near) adult age daughter (who has already lost her brother); the future emotional well being of their two young children (who can read all about daddy’s affair while mommy was dying); and the total abandonment of the ‘love child’ with Hunter. Nope its all about his political career and her book tour.
The Edwards need to retire to seperate wings of their NC mansion and stay away from cameras and keyboards. Their 15 minutes is so over...
No argument from what I see, but they will face a higher court someday.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.