When asked if he was worried about his wife leaving him he hesitated and finally vomited out something stupid. Jackass. I hope he got herpes as a going away present.
I didn’t see the interview, it’s not all that interesting to me, but hard to miss parts of it when flipping through channels, and not having some program talking about parts of it.
Yeah, Edwards was despicable what he had done, and he was stupid enough to get himself into that predicament. But I find women that intentionally seek out rich guys (married guys even more pathetic) to seduce them and more than likely, purposely get pregnant, so that they can be set financially by it or the affair itself, by far the most repugnant. I’m so sick of some of them doing this, and then using the classic line: “well, he’s needs to step up to the plate and accept his responsibilities.” So many people still buy this bullshit, when they were obviously scheming it up from the beginning. I find women that do this, often seem to get off the hook too damn easy.
I was up late last night and actually saw the interview with Elizabeth Edwards.
After watching, for reasons I dont fully understand, I feel much less sympathy for her then before.
There is just something about E.E. attitude that seems to put me off. One moment she is a sympathetic character who has been publically betrayed, and then in the next minuite she is defending John Edwards behavior, and clearly not being truthful with her answers…
Again, I think he is a class A jackass, but after watching his wife, she seems to be just fine with him and his actions, so I guess they have some sort of agreement which suits them, and hopefully she is content with being treated like a doormat.
That’s a circular argument, isn’t it ? You’re saying Clinton’s sex life wasn’t just his sex life because once people started snooping in his sex life he used federal resources to cover up his sex life.
And it’s the corruption that’s the bad thing.
STM, if nobody had raised such a stink over his sex life, there would have been no cause for corruption in the first place. AFAIK, there was no such corruption in other private or public affairs of Clinton or his government, then again at the time I didn’t pay much attention so… was there ?
Their son died, they decided to have more kids. It was late in life but they were apparently health and could afford it. If she had responded to her son’s death by decided to break the Guinness record for world’s longest fingernails, I’d agree that might be a manifestation of “some unresolved psychological dynamic.” On the other hand, this looks very simple.
When you have a terminal illness it’s pointless to spend your final days dragging your children through a divorce. It’s a lose lose situation for everyone.
Oh THAT guy. Yeah he was repulsive too but I think we can safely forget about him – I have.
Due to a lack of an apostophe in the OP I thought you might be talking about this repulsive guy, who as far as I know is still conning people out of their money.
Yes, this seems really strange to me. Did they feel like they had to have a son? To carry on the family name? That’s the only think I can thik of for having TWO kids after the age of 48…
He’s also not an eater of live babies, so far as we know, we we can rest easy on that score too.
The other reason that occurs to me is that they didn’t want to raise an only child, so they had two.
The difference is that NO ONE supports eating babies, much less does so; while there’s quite a lot of support for torture, and it HAS been done.
Yes, but the age difference is huge. The first daughter is 27 now.
How about a politician’s voting record for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act?
That may be just a POV many Dopers aren’t familiar with. I have known many families who had children quite late and so on. (My MIL had #6 at 42 and they were more than thrilled.) Some people like children and want to have them, even when they are older.
I think this question may be in the wrong thread.
Rather more significant, since unlike baby eating it actually happened.
The point I was making is that dismissing “at least he’s not a torturer” with an attempt to compare it to baby eating is at best a bad analogy, since there is a political faction that supports torture. Our country has become sufficiently morally corrupt that opposition to torture is something that can’t be taken as a given, unlike opposition to baby eating.
And support for torture is much, much, much, much worse than cheating on your wife or anything of that sort.
But the point, of course, is that when choosing among politicians who oppose torture, “willingness to abandon one’s child” may be a useful secondary criterion to many people.
I believe the point in dismissing the “torturer” comment is that, for once, we weren’t talking about George W. Bush. Or Dick Cheney. In this thread, we were talking about John and Elizabeth Edwards. Bringing their political adversaries into the thread is obsessive and completely irrelevant.
Well, at least he didn’t drive off a bridge and leave a woman to drown.
. . . . And is completely irrelevant to this thread. The question is whether the behavior he has engaged in is, or is not, contemptible. What other people have or haven’t done, or what other things he personally might or might not do (but hasn’t done), have no relevance to that question.
I’m just struck by how often on the Boards the answer to “Was Person wrong to do ?” is “At least he hasn’t done [Y]!” He also hasn’t done A through W, or Z: so what?
No, I meant they had two more children, close together, to avoid raising an “only child” – precisely because a child raised with an adult sibling out of the house is essentially raised as an only child.