Elizabeth Edwards is going to be on the View on May 19th.

Just heard it on my teevees.

That's all.

I don't have any desire to watch her discuss John's affair in detail. Maybe she needs to do it for her own personal reasons, but I don't really care.

She is thought of like a Princess in Florida. I can't believe she would need the money that bad.

I suspect that people may hear all they want to hear - if they haven't already. I would bet that she and her publisher may dream of replicating her Saving Grace success - but I seriously doubt this will come near.

In 2005, there were many who had loved and admired her in 2004 and many who thought she would be President. Not to mention the theme made sense. I'm not sure what the theme of this one really is - and I do know the name. This doesn't seem like resilience to me - moving on and working as a health care advocate and spending all the time she could with her kids would be.

This is self destructive. Her goal had been that she wanted the kids to see her husband at least partially in a good light - this works against it.

is yet to come, IMO. She's asked about the baby's paternity in the Oprah interview & answers she truly doesn't know...doesn't ring true to me. It'd be my first question & quite possibly my last if I were in her shoes, he'd have been out the door...something tells me she does know & it ain't what we want to hear. More fodder for the tabloids, a very bad rehash...I thought she was above this kind of thing & I am disappointed first because of him & now her. I was an ardent supporter. :-(

Before this, it is near universally thought that JRE is a jerk. For her, the main sentiment was sympathy, with some blaming her for being complicit in going forward with the campaign.

What could be the motives?

1) to make it clear that she didn't know until the campaign had already started - making her more innocent? The problem is her new timeline has her learning in December 2006. In March 2007, with the sad cancer diagnosis - she could have pulled the plug very easily and both would have been treated as heroes. The new timeline adds nothing - other than saying JRE lied in his confession.

2) To make the Edwards look better? - it makes JRE look far worse and, for the first time, makes Elizabeth look bad.

3) To punish JRE? She is living with him and has avoided divorce, possibly because of the kids. The problem is that she can't both hope that he will be remembered for the good he did and seen as a good man for the kids and have the discussion focus on the affair.

The only thing I can think of is that she wants to recapture the spotlight and adoration of the media. The reception given her and her first book was unbelievably positive. (In fact her treatment by the media from 2004 onward was exceptionally positive. In fact, comparisons to her was used to hit Teresa Kerry in 2004 and afterward.

It's really all she has left if, indeed, JRE is RH's baby daddy. I also think it is absolute revenge because it will ruin any chance of his ever becoming prez esp. if she believes he's the daddy. I have a hard time believing she is oblivious to the harm this book is inflicting, including to herself. She probably figures it will go blockbuster & when she's no longer around her children at least will benefit. JRE is done...and I am pained to feel this way as I truly was an ardent supporter.

It's diffcult to make sense of this venture...Elizabeth is a wronged woman, and I think she is lashing out the only way she feels is left. She suffered a lot on many levels because of his indiscretions, we all did.

about closure...come what may, it's a valid attempt at closure and to go on. It's a good title too...Elizabeth teaches us something more, yet again. God, how I wish it never happened...he and she were and are the real deal. I wish them well & I hope they can put this to rest for the sake of going forward.

and that was true back a year ago when he had dropped out - he won SC in 2004 and nothing in 2000, there is no way he could have made a serious bid even had the Republicans won. What it will destroy is likely any political career anywhere. It would likely destroy a career as a talk show person as well. For all his intelligence, charisma, and political skill, I doubt he could get elected as mayor in whatever town he lives in.

Money might be the issue, although I assume she is paid by the foundation she is working for on health care. From a WP article, they could have suffered real setbacks as, at least when they made their disclosure, much of their money was in the Fortress hedge fund that he worked for. Per the article, they have done much worse than average in the meltdown. (But even if they loss 2/3 rds of their money - which would be an extremely bad fund - they would still have 9 million of the 27 million they had. Not exactly starvation - and that is in addition to a palatial home.)

I think that is media highlighted part. I'm sure there is much more to the book then a scandal, but the scandal is more interesting from a media point of view.

I think she wants to get her two cents in while her health is still good enough to stand a whirlwind book tour.

other people telling it. It makes perfect sense to me. Wives in her situation are always expected to shut up and be quiet almost as if they didn't exist. I don't see her putting up with that.

Can some one please tell me if you know the title of her book or the release date?

cut and pasted it and went to amazon to search it.

Nothing came up. Usually, I can find almost anything.

Weird.

I believe it's being released tomorrow.

wrong or something.

Thank you!

public scab picking. it just doesn't do it for me.

raises interesting questions - as well as some very strange ones (ie bemoaning that America is too puritanical for a Charles/Camilla ending). http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/rachel_ray/blog/2009/05/07/oprahs_macabre_interview_with_elizabeth_edwards_#comments

It does get at what some of us feel - that this entire tour of promos discussing this and that part of the book itself are painful to watch. Now, there are things that are too painful to read, but which we must - because it is important. That the US tortured is one. There is absolutely no reason that this country needs to know one atom more about the Edwards' lives. (Though the legal system may have to deal with campaign finance abuses, if they end up existing)

Sometime after the Enquirer's first article in October 2007, by December 2007, Rielle Hunter, already pregnant, was moved to Chapel Hill and installed in a fancy condo. I always thought it was one of the most extraordinary pieces of this story and wanted to be a fly on the wall when this decision was made, to know who took part in the decision-making, what each player contributed to the decision to move Rielle into Elizabeth's town. If I believed the Andrew Young claim, all might be more easily explained, but I never could bring myself to accept the truth of that.