Was Elizabeth Edwards Too Harsh on Reille Hunter ?

I realize this question might not make me popular on DU, but I want to ask it anyway. In addition, I will admit that I did not watch the whole Oprah interview with Elizabeth Edwards; I only watched the segment that was aired on ABC Nightly News. I would also like to point at that I am not trying to bash or insult Elizabeth Edwards; I just question a little of what I heard from the interview.

During part of the Oprah interview Elizabeth Edwards seemed to say that women have to have a little more respect for other women. She also went on to say that she had worked hard to build a life with John Edwards and that another woman like Reille Hunter should not have tried to come in and replace her. I wonder if Mrs. Edwards is being too harsh on Ms. Hunter. I am not trying to excuse Ms. Hunter for what she did, but you have to have two people to have an affair and as far as I know Ms. Hunter did not force John Edwards to have sex with her. It seems to me that Mrs. Edwards needs to give her husband more of the blame. Mr. Edwards should have had more respect for his wife and he should have thought about the fact that he and his wife had worked hard to make the life they had.

Both are to blame. Edwards couldn't have cheated unless Hunter made herself available.

So if she wasn't available, he would have stayed faithful? Not to mention, we only have JRE's story of how they got together - whether through him directly or Elizabeth. Given that most of what he first told her was a lie - why believe that.

Given their differences in power, money, fame etc, I imagine that it was easy for him to interest a rather flaky party girl. That she would have an affair is not news - that seemed to be her life. JRE claimed to be better than that - to Elizabeth and to the country. I did not trust either Edwards in 2007/2008 and thought both were liars, but I thought that he was faithful to her.

I never said that. Please find another strawman to argue with.

My point is that Edwards' willingness was the issue - there were likely many throwing themselves at him.

I noted that both are responsible.

you said:



All I said was that "Edwards couldn't have cheated unless Hunter made herself available." was not necessarily true. He "could" have cheated with someone else.

They are the one who made the promise to someone.

in the affair he rarely gets the blame.

i have never seen people attack a "male mistress"(whatever they are called) who have sex with married women the way they do female mistresses.

That is the term for "male mistress"..

that they know is married is scum as well.

There are times when the other person doesn't know that the person they've taken up with is married - they're lied to by the cheating spouse.

Not the case here. The whole wide world had the Edwards' marriage held up to them as a lovely picture. She knew perfectly well she was choosing to become involved with a married man. And that's scummy, I agree.

She cheated with her husband. She can be mad at him for whatever reason, but she can be just as mad, if not more, at the accomplice...

That's all...

If I slept with a married woman, I would consider myself just as guilty of cheating as the woman herself. Although I am not directly cheating on her husband, I am cheating the social contract. My guilt would be just as great as hers.

you're right.

Elizabeth has every right to be harsh. Good grief.

Seriously, I have never knowingly been a party to cheating, though I did find out I was lied to about one's so-called singleness. Both parties are equally to blame for participating in breaking the vows of the relationship.

I don't consider myself all that old fashioned... My first thought when I found out about the cheating was that I hoped that John and Elizabeth had an "agreement" and that he just got publicly caught. If you make vows, KEEP THEM. Otherwise, just find someone with your same inclinations.

Back in my day, I wouldn't date a man I knew was married. Period. You want to see me? Get a divorce. Either fix your marriage, or get out of it. Period.

Yes, he's to blame for cheating.

But she didn't have to help him along. If he were robbing a bank, yes he went in and stole the money. But she was driving the getaway car. She aided and abetted the crime.

And she disrepected Elizabeth Edwards -- and all women -- by doing so.

But I guess everyone has to handle such matters as they see fit.

possibly being Edwards. and how she said that wouldn't have anything to do with her life. but you know that's not true.

and it pretty much showed why she is doing this whole thing.

...not to go after their men ~ but it sure does take two to tango, and E's fooling herself if she thinks John wasn't willing.

Did she say she didn't blame John too?

She's entitled to be as hard as she wants on that wench. This does not mean she wasn't hard on John - I'm sure it's harder to talk openly about him in this situation.

so women need to leave married men alone.

But a woman with terminal cancer whose husband cheated on her probably has carte blanche to say just about anything she wants to say about her husband, the other woman, or anything else connected with the affair, and the only possible response I could imagine would be for me to keep my yap shut, and nod with the most neutral look on my face I could muster.

There are very few privileges to dying. You take what you can get.

my girlfriends and I made a vow to never tread on another woman's territory. that was back in the day when we all burned our bras and felt a sisterhood loyalty.

Elizabeth was at her lowest with the cancer coming back, puffy and bloated by the chemo etc. Reille had to have been aware of Elizabeth's weakness, and she pounced on John with all her "hotness". he was a weak piece of refried poopoo. when I vision him now, it's always that clip of him primping his hair looking lovingly back at himself. puke.

If she wants to broadcast their disrespectful actions, then she should. her kids will read everyone else's opinion anyway, so why not put hers out there first.

When people are hurt by infidelity, the natural reaction is to look at something to have "caused" it. As far as Elizabeth knows, her husband had been faithful to her for many years and suddenly he has an affair so she looks to see what is different and the most obvious thing is the other person. Its quite natural for our cognitive filters to distort reality. Given time she will see that the real reason is that John has no sense of loyalty or accountability and it happened because he allowed it to happen.

nnnm

that your normally wouldn't, or say things you normally wouldn't, or lose your perspective in ways you haven't before. It can make you a bit crazy for a while until you regain your equilibrium. It can. I know. (Long, long ago, but I still remember.)

She also went on to say that she had worked hard to build a life with John Edwards and that another woman like Reille Hunter should not have tried to come in and replace her.

I hadn't heard anything that indicated that Rielle Hunter wanted to break up the Edwards' marriage. It seems more likely that she just wanted to have a baby, and John could provide some good genes.

see as a zero probability outcome.

Ms. Hunter knew that he was a married man and she also knew the destruction it would not only cause Elizabeth and her children and the goals that John had yet to achieve. They use to call women like her "Home- wreckers"
I think women who knowingly enter a relationship with a married man ask for the abuse from the spouse. Ms. Opportunist deserves whatever Elizabeth has said.

And did you miss the part where she is still with John? And he answered questions in the interview?

I realize there is a large contingent that lost respect for Hillary when she didn't divorce philandering Bill. And that same mindset feels that anger should have dominated all considerations for Elizabeth as well. But I don't notice a loss of respect for their wives in either Bill or John. And no lack of self-respect in the women, either.

Maybe placing blame isn't the most important thing ever. Maybe something else is.

I don't care how or where she finds it.

Even if she didn't spill all of that on stage for you.

.., she owns her feelings and I respect all of them.

And I think she was.

Like she said today, she is living a new reality. More power to Elizabeth as she seeks to find the peace and solace she so deserves.

...am I being too hard on her?

She slept with a man whose wife had cancer.

She's Newt Gingrinch in a mini-skirt - and she helped (with his obvious participation) destroy any respect I ever had for John Edwards.

Elizabeth Edwards has an important point to make about respect between women - but Hunter's actions are all too common. And I mean, really common, as in skanky common.

And that is a good thing. But it is out there and it is disgusting.

John is not blameless but it sounds like this woman seeked him out. Why didn't he tell her to get lost? That is the question. Why John?

Keep your mitts off other people's spouses.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Most of us don't have that luxury of going on Oprah to plant a scarlet letter on the other woman/man's forehead. She's using her position of privilege and power to use the media to get back at the woman, and it's hard for me to respect that. She's entitled to however much anger and resentment and betrayal she wants to feel, but her actions are irresponsible and privileged. I wouldn't like it if Olbermann or O'Reilly or Limbaugh used their media power to get back at a woman over a private relationship problem.

The other issue is that the baby may well be John's, in which case the other woman will likely be a part of their life if he has visitation ... and her child, who is innocent in this, doesn't deserve anything Elizabeth is dishing out. When parents divorce, they have an obligation to protect their kids from their private quarrels and get along for the kid's sake. The same goes for their partners all around. It's not an easy thing to do, to put the needs of a child you never wanted above the emotional need of your own to get revenge or broadcast to anyone who will listen how you've been wronged. But it is the more mature action - to put the child's emotional needs above your own. (Elizabeth probably could use some counseling on that point.)

And, I agree 100%


:hug:

but mostly just reading cause I've been busy.

not too busy, of course, to engage in a little smack down for a sister today.

hope you're doing well.

Those asshats are, well, you know, still asshats.

:hug:

I am not trying to take any blame away from Ms. Hunter. However, John Edwards knew the same things Ms. Hunter knew and still chose to cheat on his wife. It just seems to me that too many people are not giving John Edwards enough of the blame for this situation. He could have easily said no.

... into what kind of a person she was. Just like he did with his cases as a lawyer.

Hell, if he'd been a reader of Jay McInerney, he might have started to catch on.

I'm betting that she would have loved to have said a lot more.

Reille knew what she was doing as did John.

If it was me I would have torn hers and Johns eyes out and stabbed them with a dull butter knife.
But that's just me.

i just eneded a friendship with someone who decided to play with my meesy ex. my ex can't get me to engage her, so she enlisted my stupid friend to help her try to create drama in my life. i'm gay, and i've found that some women lack what i will call honor. some women are so selfish, or lonely, or whatever that they will betray other women to get their needs met. scum, just like ms. hunter.

It's probably hard enough dealing with the cheating ass spouse and holding your family together. I wouldn't expect her to have any love for Rielle.

- but it was John who broke his vow to Elizabeth. He should have been the one worried about his own family and his sick wife. Don't get me wrong, Rielle is certainly no angel. However, John alone is responsible for how his actions hurt his wife and family.

Looks like Rielle has requested a DNA test since the interview to provide evidence of parentage. Too bad that Elizabeth will have to deal with this all over again yet I can't say that I blame Rielle for wanting legal evidence of the child's parentage. I'm surprised she waited this long before requesting it.

...not to have the affair. While Rielle acted in very poor taste, she did not have a relationship with Elizabeth. John did, so his betrayal is just a little more profound.

I'd be inclined to wash my hands of both of them, though.

She's not in the position of prosecutor, judge or jury here. She's the injured party, the victim. She has a right to her true feelings and a right to express them honestly and freely.

That doesn't mean that Edwards should not be judged equally harshly; he should.

The willingness to cause stress, grief, upheaval, and loss in someone else's life for your own gain, or your own self-gratification, is more than despicable.

wife is a saint, husband is a sinner, other woman is a slut. And on it goes.

It's a mid-'80s novel by Jay McInerney ("Bright Lights, Big City"). The narrator/main character was based on Hunter, who was an ex of McInereny.

If she's anything like the character in that novel, no, EE wasn't being too hard on her. In fact, I wonder if someone should have given John Edwards a copy of that novel just after he met her...it might have saved a lot of heartache all around.

interviews with her where she states in no uncertain terms that she is that character.

When he found out her name, didn't he even realize who she was? Did he never pick up a McInerney book in his life? Didn't he realize that a person like her character could potentially be very disruptive to his life?

And I watched the whole Oprah sit down today; that she did want to put Hunter into an alien category. She may have ruined her marriage for her along with her husband, but the mistress is a human being too. And unfortunately very well may be the mother of her own children's half sibling. I think she is still in denial on the baby aspect.

She couldn't even begin to imagine a person like Hunter she said. For all of EE many great qualities having empathy for lonely, sad, strange women isn't one of them. Hunter was obviously lonely and on the lookouts to fry her last eggs. She had one scrambled by John and that is the real problem. (See we all have empathy for what we know-I was on my last eggs when I met my husband 35-so I guess I can have empathy for Hunter-the getting married when you are 22 and having four kids things I don't relate to-it's all what we know-the getting married young thing is alien to me-in fact I still think the marriage deal is still weird-I don't relate to wanting to be with one other human for forty or fifty years-isn't ten years enough!?-I kid the hubby I kid)

you could probably use a few lessons about empathy yourself.

I'm still pissed at John for betraying his wife and family.

I think Elizabeth can be as harsh as she wants about that.

is alive, healthy and not covered in bruises, then Elizabeth Edwards was not too harsh on her. John Edwards, on the other hand, is damn lucky he's married to Elizabeth and not Lorena Bobbit.

:toast:

to them.

they are filth..... personal responsibility

male, female, if they lack the character to say no, then they are right there with the cheater.

and in each one of them Hunter is dying a horrible death. I know, because I've been there. My "best friend" went after my husband and finally got him. She worked her ass off to find every little thing that could make her look good to him. Oh, and she was married at the time, too. My ex has a problem with drugs and alcohol, so guess what "best friend" did. She partied, hardy with him, and he saw a great booze buddy. It didn't matter that drugs and alcohol was a big problem for him, she encouraged it, so she could make her way into his bed. Oh, and she immediately had 2 kids with him, so she would always be tied to him (well, she says that they're his, but I have my doubts).

Women like Hunter don't care about other people. And even though a woman broke up my marriage, I could NEVER do that to another woman. I guess because I have ethics. Believe me, there are some men who would never dream of cheating, but along comes a woman who knows exactly how to get him in bed, and he is a goner.

And, remember, if John Edwards had been a horn dog, we would have heard all about it by now. The Enquirer would not let us be ignorant of the facts. So, something must have been different in his life, that made him vulnerable. And, what that difference is, is John and Elizabeth's business, not mine.

zalinda

... well, sympathy's not the right word, but understanding if it had just been a simple affair.

What he did to Elizabeth was horrible, but it's unfortunately not uncommon for middle-aged men - even ones who have NEVER cheated before - to cheat on their wives at mid-life crisis, especially when there's a major illness. Relationships are complicated, human beings are complicated and as heinous as I think John's actions were, I'd be content to not judge him for it and leave it as a private matter.

What infuriates me about what John did are two things: One, he ran for president knowing this - while hiding most of the details from not only his wife but the public - knowing that this could blow up and destroy the Democratic chances in the election, and two, it looks as though he engaged in a huge cover-up, including funneling hush money for her, and probable child support for a baby he refuses to acknowledge.

If it had been a simple affair that was over and done with, I'd be more forgiving. But what he did was beyond irresponsible.

It's established that the affair went on in 2006. That's not as important. What would be more significant is if he were still with RH in 2007. Especially after March 2007, when EE announced her cancer had returned.
Remember, in order for the baby to be his, she would have to have been conceived-- they would have to have gotten together-- in May or June of 2007.

It's a lot less damaging for him to be in an affair before he announced his candidacy, though with our puritan society, it would still have created a huge problem for his campaign-- than if he picked up that affair later on, right in the middle of a by then full-blown campaign.
And other than the picture of him holding the baby and the fateful trip to California, there simply is no evidence he was with her at all after the first part of 2007.

The part that bothers me is when EE says, "It turns out that's not all it was, he'd allowed this woman into our lives even after he knew better."
That could mean he was still carrying on with her in 2007.
But it could still be referring to the length of time he spent with her in 2006. Which, my guess is, lasted several months.
And it also could mean that he may have ceased to be sexual with RH after she was no longer on his staff, but still felt some kind of emotional connection to her. Emotional affairs can be just as much cheating as sexual ones.
One thing is for sure: he knew enough of what he was doing was wrong, NOT to give her, or her firm, any more money directly from the campaign.

The thing that baffles me the most is that he DID take steps to distance himself from RH, as evidenced in EE's Time interview. He did ask his brother-in-law Jay to take over the filming duties. He did spill the beans to his wife early on, and he did release RH from the campaign in early 2007.

A :hug: just because.

a public figure.

She still went after him.

I would imagine that most of EE's anger was directed at John, but how could she not feel anger towards Hunter?

Didn't stop him now did it? I guess Rielle raped him or something? :eyes:

Did she lie and tell him she was on the pill or infertile? Did he think (semi-rightly) that a woman in her mid-40s would have difficulty getting pregnant?

Was she that much of a wordsmith? Apparently flattery was her stock in trade... which, unfortunately, John would have a weakness for.
He's an experienced lawyer, and a wordsmith himself at that. He ought to have known when someone was using his own verbal tricks on him.

I heard (though I don't have a link) that she'd said some truly scummy things about EE before: that she was "putting out negative energy" or some new-agey crap like that. Someone like her would've presented herself in the best possible light, while cutting down Elizabeth. Especially if the two of them spent serious time together during their filming, that verbal barrage had to have had an effect.

Elizabeth mentioned that he didn't know why he'd gotten in so deep with her in the first place. My guess is he thought he was too sophisticated, too life-experienced and too old to be susceptible to that charm offensive. I bet he was surprised-- and a little ashamed-- to see how susceptible he really was.

People who do what Hunter did are sleazy and deserve no respect. They should be publicly excoriated.

First, "Rielle" is a pathetic skank. Anyone can see that. She had an affair with a married man. That is NEVER right, it is NEVER cool. I don't care if it's the love story of the ages, you don't fuck another woman's husband. Edwards is complete ass, a tool, a liar and scum. It's NEVER cool to cheat on your wife. It's wrong and it's despicable...NO execptions. If you're unhappy in your marriage, you either communicate with your spouse and try to work it out or you get legally divorced (being seperated is STILL MARRIED) and then you're free to play hide the weenie with whatever trick catches your fancy (provided she's not married).

I had some VERY unclassy moments in the aftermath of my husband's infidelity and our resulting divorce. There was a time I truly would have beat the living piss out of my husband's mistress if I ever encountered her. I had to stop and channel my anger, my feelings of humiliation and my frustration in very stelth ways. The reason, I had a young daugther who was an innocent victim in all this. If you have kids, you need to vent in ways that don't effect them. Elizabeth needs to remember is that, YES she is justified in calling this woman out for being a piece of trash and her husband as well. But the thing is "Rielle" the Homewrecker has an innocent child. Elizabeth has innocent children. Douchebag John is the father of all these innocent children. This kind of thing effects kids and hurts them to their very soul and they didn't do anything wrong. Obviously people who have kids and choose to cheat are selfish assholes. Someday their kids are going to be able to make up their own minds about it. I told my ex that I didn't tell our daughter (then 8 years old) the real reason her dad left, but someday she'll probably figure it out and will have some very tough questions for him. In the mean time I try to encourage both my ex and my daughter to have a close relationship. I tolerate my ex with gritted teeth. I cooperate with him, I work with him when it comes to child rearing issues, but beleive me, I can't stand the sight of him and I'd NEVER let my daughter know that. I'll most likely find another husband someday, but he's the only dad she'll get in this life.

So yeah she should be hard on this woman, call her a bitchcuntwhore and all that because she is. But she should have done it in private. I don't think the book and all these interviews are good idea. I personally find this whole story beyond sad. If it helps with her healing and helps her deal with it, fine, but like I said, when children are involved, things like this should be handled very delicately and if at all possible in private.

Not only because she pursued a man who's wife had cancer, but ....

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08112008/news/nationalnews/how_dare_that_brazen__floozy__123906.htm

"Her latest project was John Edwards."

"Project"? :puke:

She held herself out to be this great positive person who was so much more suitable as a mate for JRE. Never mind that EE was his life partner for 30+ years.
Emotionally, she never left high school. Usually only young idiots think THEY are going to be the ones who are so special, they'll make their crush forget everybody they've ever loved.

It also makes me dislike Eckhart Tolle, to know that she lived and breathed his philosophy to invent herself as a hokey "old soul". She probably believed that as two such old souls, she and JRE were "destined" to be together. :puke:

her more. She sounds very naive?

n/t

However, I place blame with John Edwards, period. Women who don't mind having affairs with married men are a dime a dozen, and I'm sure this woman was not the first who offered herself to him.

Elizabeth Edwards, in essense blamed the groupie, instead of blaming the Married Rock Star.

What Elizabeth Edwards said about "respect" and the other woman was said more to spare herself the truth of the reality that she is living with an asshole who puts himself first before her. Respect or lack thereof started when John Edwards succumbed to the temptation that stood before him. He obviously lacked the respect he should have had for his wife who had had him make the promise that he would never cheat on her. Obviously his word wasn't worth the breath with which he uttered that promise.

What's up with this impulse here to dictate to her how she should feel and how she should respond to this situation? To condescend to her and to judge her? What is that? Elizabeth Edwards could run circles around most of us before she has her first cup of coffee in the morning.

I answered it, and did so based on my opinion.

Was Elizabeth too harsh with the other woman?....asked the OP

My answer.....I think the real culprit is John Edwards, period.

This is the only post that I have made about this interview since it aired.

Women who will sleep with folks because they are HOT or Famous come a dime a dozen for a reason.
It could have easily been another woman, and Elizabeth might still be facing the same sorrow. However, had she been married to a different man, perhaps things would have turned out differently. This is why he is to blame and not anyone else. He is the one who betrayed his marriage vows...not the woman who wasn't even married.


Don't worry, I wasn't going to weigh in on this any more....
as I have my own life to tend to.

that's your call. You don't know my story, nor the story of anyone else, so I don't think that comment was necessary.....about how superior Elizabeth Edwards is to any of us. Certainly she's dealing with some mean cards that she has been dealt, but there are many of us doing just the same. I feel sad for Elizabeth and some of what she has had to deal with, but the OP's question wasn't about that.

to put her on a pedestal just as she doesn't need anyone to condescend to her. She is and always has been her own person.

Not at all. Quite the opposite, really.

Both John Edwards and Reille Hunter are pigs.