Lips & Ears | 05/15/2009 3:25 pm

Liz Smith on Elizabeth Edwards Final Words (Video)

Was Resilience the legacy John Edwards’s wife wanted to leave behind?

Liz Smith thinks she knows the real reason Elizabeth Edwards penned Resilience. The tell-all memoir, which she’s promoted on "Oprah," "Larry King" and several other outlets, reveals details of her husband John Edwards’s affair with Rielle Hunter. Mrs. Edwards, first welcomed with sympathy because of her terminal cancer, lately has faced severe criticism for enabling her husband to run for office when she knew he wasn’t fit. So why reveal more about yourself and your family? Watch me on Fox News provide one explanation on why Elizabeth wrote the book:

45 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

I think you’re probably right Liz. Elizabeth Edwards is probably thinking, "when I’m gone if that jerk ends up marrying that woman, I don’t want the two of THEM rewriting history, I want my children to know the truth!" I can see that because I would probably feel the same.

By DeBúrca obj on 05/15/2009 4:13 pm

e-mail alert

I agree also. But I believe there is something else at play here. Perhaps intense anger has been building up until she was ready to implode. At one time, Elizabeth must have been thinking " First Lady". Then, her the slime of her life shot down any possibility of that ever happening and just when she was coping with a terrible illness. The hurt must have been off the Richter scale. This book must be therapeutic in many ways and a sweet revenge . Still, it must be very difficult to even be in the same room with him anymore.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why such high profile men make such unbelievable choices about adulterous sex. Must be a death wish.

By Maggie W on 05/15/2009 4:53 pm

e-mail alert

She did lie to the entire country. She knew what a despicable human being John was and tried to get him elected President anyway. I guess she just figured what the heck, he’s no worse than other Democrat Presidents and wanna-be’s John Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton or John Kerry so let’s go for it. I think the reason for this book is to drive a stake through the heart of his future political career without her.

By Martha Vinyard on 05/15/2009 5:01 pm

e-mail alert

Oh, Martha…what an idea! I believe you may be right.

By deber B on 05/15/2009 5:32 pm

e-mail alert

I agree with Martha, too. Elizabeth doing this for two small children? If that was the case, she could have written private letters to them ("To be opened on _______’s 18th Birthday") It seems pretty apparent that she wanted revenge, not only against John but the "other woman".

By nanchan u on 05/15/2009 6:24 pm

e-mail alert

You forgot the Oregon mayor who had an affair with a 17 year old… oh wait. He waited until that one was a day over 18.

By hatchimitsu remon on 05/17/2009 11:37 am

e-mail alert

Let me add too that there’s been plenty of wiretapping by both Democratic and Republican administrations — all in the name of "national security". Bobby Kennedy, for example, authorized tapping Martin Luther King’s lines because he associated with a "communist"

Because there’s been plenty of abuse and corruption that has emanated from both sides of the aisle, there just isn’t any value in making blanket statements like that.

http://books.google.com/books?id=_QpECR5E7_0C&pg=PA234&lpg=PA233&ots=HwNpjo3xPP&dq=kennedy+wiretapping&ie=ISO-8859-1&output=html

By Lucinda Herbert on 05/15/2009 11:42 pm

e-mail alert

There is a difference between authorized and unauthorized, and the unauthorized wiretapping by Bush was illegal. They bypassed the rules in place.

By DeBúrca obj on 05/16/2009 12:34 pm

e-mail alert

As did Bobby Kennedy and J. Edgar Hoover. They set the precedent for illegal wire-tapping and Bobby Kennedy’s loyalists repeatedly lied about it on his behalf. J. Edgar Hoover, who was an ambitious opportunist, however revealed that in fact Bobby Kennedy was a preeminent proponent of illegal bugging. I’m not defending the Bush administration by any means, I’m simply saying that there have been other administrations (and the Kennedys come to mind), who have attempted to manipulate opinion and perception in an underhanded and illegal way.

By Lucinda Herbert on 05/16/2009 1:03 pm

e-mail alert

"Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act three decades ago not to prevent terror attacks, but to restrain a White House that, under Richard Nixon, had engaged in lawless spying for its own purposes."

THOSE are the FISA rules Bush broke. They have nothing to do with Kennedy. These rules were not in place when Kennedy was in office. The rules that were in place when Bush was in office are the ones Bush broke.

By DeBúrca obj on 05/16/2009 8:31 pm

e-mail alert

Excellent post!

By hatchimitsu remon on 05/16/2009 8:44 pm

e-mail alert

DeB

I was actually referring only to past Democrat Presidents or Presidential Candidates. You’re try to take us into the weeds with the Larry Craig story and then an entire rabbit trick switcheroo with the tired old wiretap story, which by the way, Comrade Obama has not stopped.

By Martha Vinyard on 05/18/2009 9:39 am

e-mail alert

Yes, that was my take on it. She was going to get back at him and she did.

But I happened to catch Charlie Rose the other night - EE Part I. Don’t know if anyone else caught it, but I’d be interested in hearing their comments regarding her demeanor. Anyway, her affect seemed very inappropriate. Not that I expected her to cry or be angry……but I expected some tiny sign of grief that the marriage as she knew it was over. Sure, she said the words, but they were empty. It was almost as though she was indifferent and very, very covertly trying to excuse him for his part in the affiar.

So maybe, maybe, I wonder, if the book wasn’t a political ploy to break the whole story wide open [didn’t read the book so I don’t know if it truly did]……..get the public to see that SHE had accepted it [don’t believe she has] and that she forgave him……..and if SHE forgave him, the public should, too. This would then put him back in the race, so to speak.

Does anyone else see this as a possibility?

By Andrea Brandon on 05/16/2009 12:33 pm

e-mail alert

I saw the Charlie Rose EE Part I and felt her answers were not sincere. She has practiced them way too much and has become repetitive. This could be, however because she has been asked the same questions over and over. I was struck by her comment that Edwards told her as an "act of contrition". I am more inclined to believe that the story was going to come out and he wanted to be the first in line to tell her. Another thing I feel is that she really hasn’t gotten over this and is still punishing him for his transgression. He lives in their home and is, I’m sure, being supportive in her time of need. But I feel this is still a form of punishment for him. If she really believes that writing this was cathartic then she could have kept a diary and saved her children the embarrassment of the public humiliation of exposing their father yet again to the public scrutiny. She has gone out of her way to pull the scab off the healing wound. I understand that the book was in the first stages before the affair was brought to light so I would think she would have to revise it before it was published to include her explanation of how she was reacting to the news. Believe me none of this is said to excuse John Edwards and I certainly do not feel sorry for him but he looked very small and "whipped" when Oprah asked whether he had ever thought Elizabeth would leave him.

By Bethany Christian on 05/16/2009 4:00 pm

e-mail alert

Thanks, Bethany. I still wonder if she hasn’t always been the mastermind in his career. His career is shot…….but one wonders if she has something up her sleeve.

By Andrea Brandon on 05/16/2009 4:54 pm