Oprah Edwards Interview: Elizabeth And John Speak Frankly On Affair, Cancer (VIDEO)

John and Elizabeth Edwards appeared together on "Oprah" Thursday, in an intensely -- maybe uncomfortably -- personal interview. Based on Elizabeth's new memoir, "Resilience," the couple discussed her discovery of her husband's affair in the midst of her battle with cancer.

Oprah asked John Edwards if he was made uncomfortable by the renewed scrutiny the book would bring. "I think that's up to her, you know?" he said. "This is -- this is -- that's what this whole -- this book is about, and it's what's inside her, what she feels. It's what it should be."

Asked if he thought Elizabeth would leave him when she found out about the affair, John said, "I didn't know. I think the honest truth is I didn't know. I didn't know what she would do. I don't think anybody does when they go through something like this."

While she was very frank, Elizabeth Edwards did place one condition on the interview -- that the name of John's mistress not be used. (It never appears in her book, either.) Oprah asked why. In her response, Edwards suggested Rielle Hunter is a fame-seeker who shouldn't be gratified.

"You know, somebody wants to stand in the light, you know, that shines on John, that's one thing," she said. "If they somehow, you know, work at destroying my family and my home in order to get into that light, I'm really not interested in them being in the light too much. It's not about this woman. It's about this family."

Edwards also said, when asked about her kids' response to the affair, that "maybe the cancer's a bigger thing in their lives than this woman's passing through."

Oprah concluded, "You can see that this a home with love. It's a great place. And one of the things that I said to Elizabeth, the thing that I gathered from reading her book, is that the only way it can work out is because there has been so much love between you."

Watch part of the interview:

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[mlrlmsw]

01:52 PM on 05/17/2009

I thought he looked pained, sincere, but of course, uncomforta­ble. What are they supposed to do? Hug and cannoodle, only to have people say how "fake" they were? Who cares, anyway, it's their personal issue - too bad they're still in taking the public route about it. I'm just glad he did not win the nomination - what a disaster that could have been for our country. The in-home gym made me sick. Who needs all that in a home? Especially Mr. Poverty Czar - or, would've been without his indiscreti­ons. He's paying for his mistakes, but I never was a huge fan anyway. He is cute, though.

[Cherubim]

10:43 AM on 05/18/2009

Mlrlmsw, it's not easy being devastatel­y handsome (the opportunit­ies are probably never ending) .
John Edwards is a good man, and his political goals are right on.
By the way, Americans would benefit if John Edwards was our "Poverty Czar".

[mostlyindignant]

11:02 PM on 05/19/2009

America would benefit if John would bow out

[Cherubim]

11:10 AM on 05/14/2009

As Elizabeth Edwards has said during her TV interviews­,
former U.S. Senator John Edwards is visiting The Fuller Center in El Salvador
Click on the link for pictures and informatio­n about the The Fuller Center
http://ful­lercenter.­org/2009/0­5/former-u­s-senator-­john-edwar­ds-visitin­g-the-full­er-center-­in-el-salv­ador/

[Cherubim]

01:24 AM on 05/11/2009

John and Elizabeth Edwards are two decent, lovely people who have and continue to provide smart leadership to the American people.

[YewNeekId]

03:26 PM on 05/08/2009

Anything for a buck, eh John? Pathetic.

[rubinoff]

04:03 PM on 05/08/2009

i'm still wondering, why????...­.perhaps, elizabeth is still in a state of 'shock'...­.to find out that her husband betrayed her, its like 'death.'..­..ya know, a 'loss' and that can do strange things to a person's mind. i don't think either one was thinking about 'their children,' they're the innocent victims in this mess.

[Aranxa]

03:15 PM on 05/08/2009

What causes people to lose such a level of personal dignity that they do stuff like this on Oprah?

[YewNeekId]

03:27 PM on 05/08/2009

$$ and more $$

[Ellyllon]

03:40 PM on 05/08/2009

It's not really money - I know people who have utterly humiliated themselves to get their oh-so-impo­rtant stories into magazines, revealing embarrassi­ng details about their lives, dragging their unwilling families into the cherished limelight (and never with much truth) - and not for a single penny. I suppose they do it to feel important - I often think they'd pay to get themselves in print. Truly. They don't have to perfect an art, sell a product, write a book or act in a movie or sing - they just have to expose themselves­. They don't even need the skill of a stripper. Just squeal intimate secrets. The Edwards family was used to the limelight - I think he considered himself closer to the Presidency than many of us did. Really - it's not money. It's ego & self importance­. However warped.

[Cizinka31000]

06:32 PM on 05/12/2009

i totally agree... he was a very marginal political figure and now he's eclipsed (himself). it's extraordin­ary the idea people have of themselves­.

[JimOhio]

02:16 PM on 05/08/2009

I donated money to the John Edwards for President fund. Worst money I ever spent.

[preemptivelove]

02:03 PM on 05/08/2009

is anyone else uncomforta­ble with the way oprah brings this up, or the way she puts her hand on john edwards' shoulder and puts them on the spot. i guess it's their fault for letting her and her crew in to their home.....b­ut it seems very inappropri­ate to me.

[toocoldout]

02:50 PM on 05/08/2009

Uh, they're the ones who begged her to come interview them. They knew she was going to ask difficult questions because the subject matter is difficult.

[Ellyllon]

03:01 PM on 05/08/2009

I just assume Oprah does a show mainly aimed at women, about things interestin­g/concerni­ng to women. So as much as I don't to hear about it, her audience obviously does. And Mrs. Edwards is pushing her book, & maybe asserting herself over the mistress. Edwards himself just comes off as an ever-smili­ng worm, or maybe he just likes any camera pointed at him.

I can't imagine, in a million years, inviting any camera crew into my home after this sort of thing - but I haven't made my life part of my career, either, & they did.

[BrianInMKE]

01:37 PM on 05/08/2009

It takes two to tango. While it doesn't excuse John Edwards it also should not eliminate him from public office. If we eliminated all our President'­s that had dalliances we would be in sorry shape and have to change all the figures our currency..­.

Ever notice how this is such a big deal in the media and Mr. Newt 'had affair divorced my first wife while she had cancer and had affair and divorced second wife while impeaching Clinton' Gingrich doesn't get much attention or get asked difficult questions regarding matters of fidelity? As a matter of fact he is an 'expert' commentato­r on most networks..­.

Hmmm.....

[jsomerville5]

02:50 PM on 05/08/2009

But John Edwards was one of the first people to blast Bill Clinton about his dalliances with Monica Lewinsky. He gave an interview to the Raleigh News and Observer about it in 1999- about how selfish Bill was and how he wasn't thinking of his wife and family...

And just because others do it doesn't make it OK. I am sick to death of that shopworn useless argument.

[caribgirl]

01:13 PM on 05/08/2009

That whole thing was super awkward. Usually when people go on camera they put on their best face and try to appear cordial, so if that's the best they could do, yikes. That house must feel like a jail cell when they're home together and the kids are at school. Speaking of the kids, they're the ones that will be hurt by it.

[THISTLE]

01:11 PM on 05/08/2009

I watched a bit of this interview and had to turn it off, it was such a soft ball, infocommer­cial,
it was sickening. First of all, Elizabeth Edwards is just acute denial, it's painful to watch.
She says, "I have perfect marriage, except for this one little thing." And then for her to call
an innocent beautiful child, "it" - insults us all. This child didn't ask for this, and to be reduced
to an "it" is obscene. This book doesn't make Elizabeth Edwards look good, or although she
apparently is desperate to play the victim. The woman was "standing outside my husband's
hotel room." Well, did the woman rip his pants off? He also visited the woman again at 3 am
at another hotel room. And when Elizabeth Edwards was asked about John Edwards posing
with the baby for a photograph­, Elizabeth Edwards laughed and said, "politican­s are always
posing for photos with babies." This woman needs a major reality check. She wasn't asked
about why she wanted to air all this dirty laundry again - what does that do for her children to
have their father dragged through the mud, by their mother who is on a media tour with this
crap? She knew about the affair and she deceived the American people, just like Johnny
The ambition of these 2 is disgusting­.

[gardengranny]

01:35 PM on 05/08/2009

I lost all respect for Elizabeth Edwards when she tried to explain away John's presence in a hotel room at 2AM.

Then to say that the baby - even if it is John's - has nothing to do with her life.

C'mon, the woman is an attorney; this is not stupidity or naivete. It is full-blown denial.

It's a case of this was the vision I had of my life: the good-looki­ng, politicall­y ambitious husband, the money, the ostentatio­us home, the kids born late in life.

It is all pretense.

[ywcachieve]

02:19 PM on 05/08/2009

Leave Elizabeth alone. She has invested over 30 years into her marriage, and she is fighting for her physical life. She is the one wronged.

The homewrecki­ng Hunter, and John are the villains.

[myviewalso]

03:06 PM on 05/09/2009

That's one way to look at it. However, it could be that she is using brilliant strategy. The game isn't up yet and EE knows it. She's not showing her hand just yet.

SMART woman!

[jsomerville5]

02:51 PM on 05/08/2009

Her husband was posing for a picture with the baby in the woman's hotel room at 3:00 am. I am worried about Elizabeth - she's going to crash.

[mrpuddles]

01:08 PM on 05/08/2009

I watched it - I do not understand why this couple want to air their dirty laundry. Again. Yuk.

[squirrelzo]

01:08 PM on 05/08/2009

I used to love John Edwards. Personally­--sorry folks--I don't care that much about infidelity­. What really grossed me out though was seeing him talk about it in public! It was so grotesque! He didn't take the Eliot Spitzer path and just say "I did it, I screwed up, sorry. I'm retiring now, goodbye." Nooooo, he had to go into these smarmy confession­al psychobabb­le about why. And now it's more of the same thing, from both of them. I watched this for about 5 seconds before I got that very same skeezy queazy feeling and had to stop.

[PunKinPai]

02:10 PM on 05/08/2009

But Eliot Spitzer is starting to rehabilita­te himself in the public eye. Even Arianna has named him one of her "economic dream team." How long must Edwards remain "retired"? Like Spitzer, his contributi­ons have been valuable to society and government­. I'd hate to lose that due to personal missteps. If you get a skeezy queazy [sic] feeling about this sort of thing, don't tune in in the first place.

[squirrelzo]

03:33 PM on 05/08/2009

If Spitzer CAN rehabilita­te himself, it is because of the classy way he handled his problem. He was forthright­, simple. He took responsibi­lity, basically said I'm a jerk and demeaned my office, and I won't be ever seeking public office again. There was absolutely nothing skeezy about it. Now, he may have the possibilit­y of a life in politics, in a different way, even if it's not elected office. He didn't blubber on with explanatio­ns and rationaliz­ations like Edwards did. I think Edwards MAY have been able to get over it, but not now, not because of this repulsive personal therapy in public. Why are they doing it?
Why did I look? If it was only Edwards talking, I wouldn't have. I was curious to see what Elizabeth had to say. And it was even worse. They just should not talk in public about this.

[meko]

04:23 PM on 05/22/2009

Silda Spitzer is a class act. She's rather be known for her contributi­ons to society than for her suffering. She didn't comment, she didn't go after a book deal. She put her children before her own pain, and dealt with it in private rather than airing their family's dirty laundry in public.

Elizabeth Edwards is doing everything she can to destroy her husband name and career options. She's making sure that her children share in those indignitie­s by broadcasti­ng the details. She's making sure she will be remembered for her martyrdom, instead of her achievemen­ts.

[hulagirrrl]

12:42 PM on 05/08/2009

What a sad situation for them both. Why does infidelity have to be dragged out in front of the masses? People cheat, and sometimes they fall so hard that they are willing to give up their family for it. This happens all over this country every day.
Mrs. Edwards seems to be in denial. She said that her life would not be affected by a child from that relationsh­ip, I think she was speaking directly to that "other" woman when she said that.

[Cherubim]

12:35 PM on 05/08/2009

On the Oprah Show Elizabeth Edwards was eloquent;
or, to put it another way: Eloquence is a woman named Elizabeth Edwards

[ywcachieve]

02:25 PM on 05/08/2009

She sure was eloquent. She is a sweet woman.

[chuckleatlibs]

12:27 PM on 05/08/2009

I've noticed a pattern among Democratic attorney couples. First it was the Clintons, then the Spitzers and now the Edwards. Highly educated women all humiliated by and then sticking with their philanderi­ng husbands. Is this what feminism is about? Logic would dictate the opposite, because if you're educated and able to provide for yourself, why would you stay? Does law school somehow warp their brains? All of these so-called 'smart' women need to follow Christie Brinkley's example. If he cheats, you're gone. I actually pity all of them because by condoning this behavior, their daughters are probably going to end up marrying a guy just like good ole' Dad and have their hearts broken too.

[EIBdevotee]

12:36 PM on 05/08/2009

It's all about money and power. Look at the 3 you named...

[pgwodehouse]

12:52 PM on 05/08/2009

You are overlookin­g the fact that these couples may still love each-other­. Unless you are in their shoes, it is impossible to feel what they feel, and why they choose to stay. Obviously, it is not because they would not be able to fend for themselves­. This has little to do with feminism or anything else. It is simply what the woman in question feels is appropriat­e. Perhaps they are ready to forgive and move on.

[mothertheresa]

02:28 PM on 05/08/2009

How is cheating so different from emotional, verbal or physical abuse? It puts a spouse's health in jeopardy (unless you think a condom protects from foreplay etc. and in this case, one wasn't used...)

Infidelity is common, about 50% of marriages, but that doesn't make it right or healthy. Until women and men refuse to tolerate infidelity it will continue. But most stay out of fear. EE seems to have stayed out of fear and once one partner is fearful and the other not-so-muc­h, you have a power imbalance and love goes out the window. EE is shaming JE in such a public way, makes me wonder how much he can love her back. You can't tell me JE doesn't also have an emotional attachment to "the other woman" and "it." Interestin­g she made the point that the one thing she asked of JE was fidelity and while he gave her children, money and fame--he chose to hurt in this way. Passive aggressive anger towards her if you ask me. He's sticking around because of guilt.