It probably wasn't hurting his family so much since that particular marriage is dead and gone and he is in a more recent one, except to probably prove to his ex-wife that he was a bounder and about another affair he might have had. However, it was unnecessary for Barbara to reveal this except for her trying to prove what a "hip" person she was, that she had an affair just like so many other celebraties - "hah, I'm not as staid as you think I am."

It is one thing to admit to being human and having made some mistakes, but I would never had revealed an actual name. I see it as only hurting the loved ones of the man she named, and that should be all water under the bridge and not brought up.
People can and often do change, move on, and become better individuals.

I don't understand why she did it either. It only makes me think less of her.

Ditto with what chemocurl said.

I guess I'm with the majority. My immediate thought was "Do you need the money badly enough to have to tell ALL, no matter what?" I only watched a very little bit of the interview as I don't much care about celebrities lives.

Shirley

I've never thought much of her... I think this shows her true character. IMHO it shows she'll do anything for a buck or to gain some more notoriety. You know what they say... there's no such thing as bad press.

Telling stories is OK. Naming names is not very classy.

I did watch part of the show because I just happened on to it, and wondered why BW was on. Then I realized it was to promote the book.

I think it was completely irresponsible and rude to put that in the book, or mention it on air.

I don't know what she said about Star. Neither do I care about either one of them.

Sue

In the interview with Oprah she made it sound like she and Star are over it and ok with it all now. Star doesn't sound happy!

come on..everyone in the inner circles already knew...so what's the difference? as for star she sounds like sour grapes. she got caught with her hand in the "cookie jar" for the wedding and is still trying to make everyone pay for her short lived "fairy tale"...

anyone see her interview last night with charlie gibson? it was great!

I think she should have kept her mouth shut about her affair--and so should he.

And it is entirely different, to have all your friends know, from your writing about it in a book that you know will have a much wider audience.

Let sleeping dogs lie...it was wrong, wrong, wrong.

Unfortunately I think Starr is also showing her true character, it seems she's still trying to get even.

I have a question, and I'm not sure I remember this correctly - did Barbara tell Oprah that she contacted the Senator and he said that it was OK to reveal this? I know Barbara said something about it but the phone was ringing and I'm not positive what she said.

I concur with the others that it was in bad taste for Barbara to come out and publicize an adulterous affair that was long in her past. I can't help wondering if she felt that by letting us all know about the affair, she thought it would impress upon us that she was not only a determined and talented newswoman, but also a sexy, hip person who was involved with a goodlooking African American politician, years before Obama came along. Am I the only one who wonders if she would be so quick to publicize a long ago affair if he'd been a nobody white guy?

On the other hand, I didn't think Barbara made a big deal or said anything uncalled for regarding her statements about Star. She did explain (for those who didn't watch) that it had become evident that Star's misleading comments about her weight loss, and her constant talk of her wedding and solicitizing for freebies had turned many viewers off, which resulted in a significant drop in ratings.

Barbara mentioned that Star insinuated publically that she was 'fired' which made the network look bad, when she in fact had not been, they simply chose to not renew her contract. In television, viewers and therfore adverstisers, are the means of their profit, so they can't afford to renew the contract of someone whose personality has begun to affect the bottom line.

I have a dear friend who worked for the same very large company as my nephew. She was let go along with all the others in her department, because the company was not doing well at the time, and unfortunately, her department was the most expendable. My friend had contracted M.S. about 2 months before she lost her job. I'm sure the company was aprised of this, but she has a mild form of it and her work never suffered due to her condition. Although I love her dearly, when I hear her tell new friends that she was fired from ABC company just after she contracted M.S., it really bothers me. Technically, it's the truth, but purely coincidental and she never remembers to tell others that her entire department was let go. I understand her anger at having lost her job, but the company's reputation is being tarnished unfairly.

I think Barbara was just trying to dispel any false insinuations Star made after leaving The View, and I can't fault her for that.

McMann, it's hard to say precisely. Her words were, "I told him. I wrote that he was in the book, and he wrote me back." I expect that was before it was published but after it was written. No indication if he gave permission. It sound more like she informed him after the fact, but she did not give us his response.

PickyShopper, in her interview with Charlie last night, she did confess to another tryst, this time with her boss - someone at ABC. However, she did want to point out it was not a casting couch situation with ". . . but I already had the job." About Star though, I think she's nuts and unable to see reality for what it is. The way she always avoided the surgery question as if viewers are stepford wives with no minds of their own - just really too stupid to see through her - made no sense at all. And, not wanting to be the poster child for the surgery didn't mean she had to lie. The surgery issue, the job issue - everything had to be turned into a lie when the truth would better have served the purpose. She would have landed on her feet triumphant, rather than someone always trying to snow the public. I think the way Barbara described the each scenario was very gracious.

Bestlawn, I somehow missed if the workplace affair was mentioned with Oprah and I didn't catch the other interview, so I wasn't aware she'd had more than one fling. It seems I'm off base then about the reasons I thought she mentioned the one with the politician, since she came clean about the other affair as well. I agree with you about Star. Her taking us for idiots, just made her the fool.

Nope, it wasn't mentioned on Oprah. Charles Gibson didn't talk a lot about her book because they are colleagues, so he had lots of other points of reference - the inside stories so to speak. But then, the book was glazed over in her interview with Oprah, just touching on certain chapters, while Charlie took her completely through her career. I liked his much better.

His name was Ted Cot (sp?) and was station manager at NBC when she first began working there, but she already had the job at the time.

He also asked her about an affair with Fidel Castro. He was adamant and wouldn't layoff that she flirted with Castro. She denied any affair or flirting but admitted she liked him.

Oh, I forgot.
She dated John Warner "a great deal," then he married Elizabeth Taylor. She did an interview with the both of them that last night she called "bizarre." Then, after her divorce, she and John began dating again.

Also something about Allan Greenspan but nothing conclusive. When Charlie asked her, she stated, "We are friends to this day." Have to draw our own conclusion.

I fast forwarded through the recording to answer you.

I think she behaved like a cad in naming the senator. In the Gibson interview, she said she had sent him a letter telling him she was naming him in the book. We would call a man a cad for naming a woman, and she is the female version. This senator has a family, children and other relatives, and all could be hurt with this unnecessary revelation.

I think we all guessed Star's surgery secret. She lost weight just too fast for a "diet." Losing weight that fast is either stomach bypass surgery or terminal cancer. Her heavy breathing reminds me of an asthmatic, which I have always assumed she is, though obesity can cause breathing problems too. Star made her weight and her wedding public topics, so I feel she is fair game with the "revelation."

She's a publicity wh@re, as well as the other kind of wh@re too. To announce that she had an affair, with no remorse, no regrets, what a fine outstanding person she is.

She's trash on TV.

Not so kind to call her that name, but I am reminded of her interview with Monica Lewinsky. Didn't she ask Monica how she could sit there and smile on public TV about her conduct with the president? Didn't she say something about how his wife was supposed to feel about that?

Remind me, please, because I could be wrong, thinking they were her interview questions when they could in fact be observations other people stated after the interview.

LOL...I still think she told because she's getting old and ugly....and she's trying to convince the world (and herself) that's she's still got it....

(Sweety it ain't looks ya got...it's money)

patti

Some things are better taken to the grave, IMHO. Okay, she wants to sell her book. Fine. Tell the world you had an affair. But keep his name out of it, unless he fathered a love child and you need some financial support, LOL. Unless he has absolutely no living relatives (unlikely) there is no telling how many people this information can sadden.

I don't feel strongly one way or the other regarding what she said concerning Star, but I don't particularly like the tone of Star's response.

Total lack of class. And I'm a bit amused, she had an affair with a married man, and we are trying to figure out if it was wrong of her to TELL about it?? She has been wrong from start to finish, she's just another amoral self-centered celeb.

I am so sick and tired of turning on TV and seeing Barbara talk about her tell all book, much of which should not have been told. I certainly do not plan to buy her book.

All I know is if I see her hawking this book on one more show....
The View
Letterman
Oprah
Regis
Bill O'Rielly

I'll scream. She already told all the juicy parts, so why buy the book now?
I liked BW, but she is looking for sensationalism.

LOL! What Patti said.

Never liked her, couldn't stand to hear her talk and think less of her now....Like cherchez said, TV trash!

It is wrong to have an affair.
It is tacky to write about it.
It is presumptuous to write an autobiography.

(the above statements are the opinion of the writer only)

Thank goodness our local reporters put on very little of this junk and put on alot of positive upbeat local and national news.

IMO, she should have left names out of it or left it out entirely. If she mentions it without names, the media will have a hayday spouting out all sorts of names, which only makes matters worse for all kinds of people. If she left it out of the book , I would have a better opinion of her. Sad though to find out her morals are so low. If she's that way, I'm sure she lies all the time. I used to think I could respect her opinion, at least now I know otherwise. She is showing the true Bwarbwar.

One thing for sure if they keep hashing this on all the tv shows,none of us will have to go buy the book,we'll already know all that is in it.JMO
Kathi