"Elizabeth Edwards' agenda is being held hostage by her husband John"
Chip Franklin and I had an extended and, listening to it again, very interesting discussion on San Diego's news-talk giant KOGO-AM this morning about the John Edwards "semi-confession" of his extramarital affair with filmmaking neophyte Rielle Hunter on "Nightline." The audio is below and if you've got 13 minutes to spare, I highly encourage you to listen to it.
I argued, as I have done elsewhere on TV Barn, that Elizabeth Edwards' own health-care agenda is being held hostage by her husband dalliances; that John Edwards needs to stop denying and claiming private privilege when, as his own wife has stated in the past — including as recently as May 22 on NPR — that when you are in the public eye you should not only NOT expect privacy but use your loss of privacy as a "teachable moment" to talk about things, like breast cancer, you might otherwise keep private. Chip and I disagreed sharply over whether the issue of men abandoning women suffering from cancer is a big issue (I think it is, he thinks that's a "stretch"). And we broke down Bob Woodruff's interview with the former presidential contender and talked about the unanswered questions left behind after the ABC interview.
Here's our conversation:
Don't forget, you'll get these edited, right-to-the-point audio programs 2-3 times a week automatically if you subscribe to TV Barn Podcasts.
Now, on to the reaction. Deceiver, which has been leading the web coverage of l'affaire Huntress — it seems even the NY Times is cribbing off its term paper — checked in with a laundry list of unanswered questions left behind in the wake of the ABC interview. Like: Why is someone going to so much trouble to scrub any memory of Rielle Hunter's new-age nutsite from online archives? And: Why was Edwards still making payments to her in April 2007 if the affair was, as Edwards put it, so 2006?
Let me say, though, that the latter matter moved a lot closer to a non-resolution resolution when the alleged father of Hunter's love baby offered to take part in a paternity test ... and Hunter said Saturday she would not. If Hunter wanted to hurt Edwards, I can't imagine anything more damaging than refusing to settle this matter. I mean, the money's hers regardless ... right? So why not just step forward and resolve this thing? Because it's worse to be a politician who admits to fathering an out-of-wedlock child than it is to have the rumor hovering over your head? I dunno, coming clean seemed to work out well for this guy.
Here's my question: In an attempt to boost her sagging TV ratings, will Oprah have John and Elizabeth on her show this fall to talk about men who cheat on their wives with cancer? I know I'd tune in for that.
