Skip to main content

View Diary: OMG the affair was with his biographer who tried to access his emails - Updated: FBI forced his hand (107 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  She appears on the Daily Show (11+ / 0-)

    Jan. 25, 2012. Her husband is in the audience. She refers to Patreus as "her mentor". I hope they used a condom for her husband's and his wife's sake.

    •  daily show link here: (8+ / 0-)

      watching this today is fairly astounding --  the whole interview just seems to scream "I am having a secret affair with David Patreus as we speak!"

    •  my husband & i watched that show (21+ / 0-)

      & thought there was something about the interview that was strange: a young woman writing a biography about an older man who was a general in the midst of a hot war, with him almost 24/7 in all sorts of situations even jogging with him every morning for hours in the pre-dawn darkness discussing her book (! -- how do you have a conversation while you're running, for hours?) . . . it just sounded like a recipe for trouble, & her over-the-top praise for all-things-petraeus -- he was wonderful & super-intelligent & very interested in those in his command & understanding & sympathetic, in fact, he was god & superman rolled into one -- she was positively giddy in her enthusiasm.

      her husband was in the audience & she seemed to make too much of a point that he was so supportive of what she was doing, etc.

      after the interview ended my husband & i said how weird it seemed.  she just wasn't convincing as a serious writer & now we know why.

      •  True, but didn't she say (7+ / 0-)

        That she was writing her dissertation on him, or the war, or something?  She also went to West Point, I think?  So she's no dummy, even though she's obviously done something very stupid.

        "We *can* go back to the Dark Ages! The crust of learning and good manners and tolerance is so thin!" -- Sinclair Lewis

        by Nespolo on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 04:30:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  that's right -- she was in the army, & i didn't (7+ / 0-)

          mean to sound like i was disparaging her abilities as an author -- she didn't come across as being very introspective about her subject -- she was more adoring than objective, finding no fault whatsoever, & even if she was withholding the negative b/c word might get back to him, it still was a bit over-the-top.

          •  "Her abilities as an author" (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            middleagedhousewife, G2geek, bluezen

            About that.

            ....I haven't read the book, but if you look at the cover, she has a co-author named "Vernon Loeb," (who also is credited as a co-author on another major war book on Amazon)

            Per a very quick Google, he is a well-credentialed journalist, at the Philly Inquirer and now at the Washington Post.  

            This is actually an area I know a little about, as I've been a ghost writer but mostly a 'credited ghost'/ credited 'co-author' for some major non-fiction (best-selling) publications.  

            The point is, you don't need a high profile 'credited ghost' if you are a real, solid writer.  I hate to say that, but the people who've hired me are people with personal stories to tell who basically can't write them on their own.  It's quite odd for a biographer to have her own credited ghost.  Because...the biographer is supposed to be the writer!  Mostly, we're used by people "writing" their autobiographies or telling first person stories that they can't write themselves.  We write in the first person for them, trying to capture their real 'voice' as best we can.

            What I'm saying is, the biographer (a Harvard research fellow, etc.) would more logically be the actual writer. Not just the 'marquee name.'

            This is very, very odd.

            It leads me to believe - based on my own experience - that Ms. Broadwell had the access and sold the book based on that.  She did not sell the book based on her writing skill. She needed Loeb, a 'real' writer, to actually produce the finished book.  Loeb himself could easily have done these interviews, as a journalist, and written the book.  He could have 'co-written' it with Petraeus as an autobiography.  But it was Broadwell who was embedded with Petraeus.  

            Clearly, Broadwell was chosen by Petraeus to be embedded with him...for 'her' book...which really isn't as much 'her' book as she would like to have us believe, given Loeb's experience and credentials, and the fact that he's a 'credited ghost' and not a true ghost.    

            This all reminds me a little of John Edwards hiring "videographer" Rielle Hunter to document his campaign at retail prices, despite the fact that she was neither a videographer nor a filmmaker with any credentials at all.

            Make no mistake - Ms. Broadwell has a long resume of impressive accomplishments so I'm not comparing her in generality to Rielle Hunter (who IMHO - and the O's of people I know who knew her - is a new age flake.)  I'm saying that the set up is odd and suggests a strange (or not so strange?) favoritism given by Petraues to the lovely Ms. Broadwell that more logically,  should've been granted to an already established, more experienced writer.  

            Why pay two writers when you only need one?

            "The ignorant mind, with its infinite afflictions, passions, and evils, is rooted in the three poisons. Greed, anger, and delusion." - Bodhidharma

            by hopesprings on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 09:51:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  your career sounds fascinating! i think you've (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              hit on the circumstances surrounding how/why ms. broadwell wrote, umm -- dictated :) the book to her co-author exactly as they went down.

              as i was reading your comment the thought occurred to me about john edwards' affair & bingo! you made the same connection, too!  it also reminded me of the ike & kay summersby rumors during ww2.

              whether it was ms. broadwell's idea or petraeus' to write a biography about him (i think the former, not the latter), there was too much opportunity for mischief & it seems like that's what happened.  human nature is human nature, afterall.

              like i said, while watching the interview i was struck by her attitude towards her subject.  usually, biographers have come to know the person they're writing about so well, much of the glitter has come off & they see them as they really are, warts & all, but not her -- she acted like a schoolgirl in love.  which is what she was, at the time.

              •  Interesting, Bluezen... (0+ / 0-)

                ...are you referring to the Daily Show interview?

                I just watched it; truth be told, I was expecting more "tells" from her based on the comments other Kossacks have made about the piece.

                Overall I thought she got away with acting as if she was admiring of him but not infatuated...except in a couple places where she was oddly 'giggly' for a military person.  But per your comment, she did not discuss the man the way a biographer would.  She spoke in generalities and without a lot of insight as to what his place in history should be, etc.  Which I think is what we seek from biographers, isn't it?  

                (Funny, it seemed to me that Jon Stewart had a little crush on her.  He was more giddily silly than he tends to be with less than famous guests.  Maybe it was the arms.  I'd kill to have arms like that!)

                "The ignorant mind, with its infinite afflictions, passions, and evils, is rooted in the three poisons. Greed, anger, and delusion." - Bodhidharma

                by hopesprings on Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 03:39:38 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  yes. that's the one my husband & i watched in (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  january.  what can i say, except when you see something completely innocently without any preconceived notions you come away completely unbiased.  maybe my husband & i were reading into it something you didn't but that's what we we saw.

                  i've  read a lot of biographies & my husband hasn't, but we both came to the same conclusion: paula broadwell was acting.  i think jon stewart was reacting to her like any man would to an attractive woman.  nothing more, nothing less.

                  her arms -- meh.  i had arms like that when i was in my fourties & fifties.  lift weights :)

      •  Just watching it now, (5+ / 0-)

        it's loaded with innuendo.  Kudos for thinking so in real time, and actually remembering the interview.

        "And now we know that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob." -- FDR

        by Mogolori on Fri Nov 09, 2012 at 07:28:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Whatever the results of consorting she has to live (3+ / 0-)

      with the consequences.  Republicans, like Mourdock" feel whatever comes from this affair, she must be fruitful --- it is God's will.

      •  Somebody ask John Edwards about that. Enquiring (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PeterHug, hopesprings, G2geek, drmah

        minds were in the hallway with cameras even as otherwise reasonable people flat-out denied he was a sleazeball. I sparred with him at a town hall meeting in NH and he was so mean and nasty to me (granted I was asking him hard questions) it was like being bullied in junior high school and by the time he was finished there were audience members looking at me in sympathy and him in disgust. Character shines through whether you want it to or not.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site