In Defense of Elizabeth Edwards and Other Enablers [Updated]

This past Sunday, Sally Quinn wrote a thought provoking Washington Post column about Elizabeth Edwards that got many of my friends talking. She took a slightly different tack than much of the other media coverage has taken. In the outcry about John Edward's revelations, she pointed one of her fingers at Elizabeth Edwards, as an enabling wife. In my humble opinion, there are arguably many ways to examine this kind of a news story. There are so many angles in the prism from which to view it; who is at fault, who did what to whom, who is lying and when did they lie. In short -- the world has always been and is full of human frailty. But when someone is running for public office, it does require a stronger microscope.

Frankly, I was heartened that the Saturday morning after Edward's admission, the Today Show ratings handily beat their competition with their exclusive Olympics coverage. I thought this augured well for America. A splash of international sports competition in China was far more captivating to the average American viewer than the same tawdry political story of the lying, cheating, son of a bitch with the blonde permed floozy. "Oh, another page out of the Gary Hart Monkey Business book," yawned my sister. Perhaps, as citizens, we have become more like the French when it comes to expectations for our political leaders; a dalliance here, a blow job there, a call girl in the hotel room or the swelling belly housing a love child tucked away in a penthouse suite. Oh, that. Yawn.

Before I begin my defense of enablers, let me make one thing clear. It's entirely possible that I may be the biggest patsy alive. I'd like to believe my husband has been honest with me all of these years. And perhaps, at this very moment, he's speed dialing some stripper from the Badda Bing Club, or getting ready for a nooner in between bites of his sandwich at a no-tell motel. If so, I suppose that would make me an enabler too.

When most of us enter marriage we base our union on one big important thing -- trust. When we take those vows, be they the antiquated ones "honor and obey" or some groovy updated version "we will always listen to one another's point of view," we spouses mostly jumped in believing we would trust the other person to hold up their end of the bargain. Unless, of course, one is marrying someone with a checkered past; a tattooed Tommy Lee of the rock world, or Elizabeth Taylor, for example, someone for whom commitment and vows seem.... perhaps a bit more elastic.

So if Elizabeth Edwards had niggling doubts somewhere in the past, if she and her husband talked it over and he assured her he was telling the truth, well, somewhere in there the trust factor had to come into play. Sometimes because we do love, we fill in trust in places our spouse may not deserve. Even when our heads are telling us not to, our hearts create the trust bridge. I want to believe my husband does love me when he tells me so. And I don't need to go looking for trouble until I begin to smell something that might stink like fish.

Is it truly possible to recognize all of the dangers, the warning signs lying out there in wait for us during one lifetime? That inability to always navigate correctly, to hope, perhaps, for the best in our marriages, is what makes us human. Presumably it's what keeps people like Elizabeth Taylor going back to the well each time, in hopes that she will truly find her Prince Charming. For those of us weaned on Cinderella and Snow White, somewhere in our marrow, people like me still want to believe in true love. We still hope that it can conquer all, no matter what dings and dents life throws at us.

I cannot imagine anyone being willing to endure a marriage grounded in continual suspicion or assumption of wrongdoing. Yes, there is a fine line between gullibility and believing in someone, between stupidity and strapping on a set of blinders. But if I've asked my hubby the same question four different ways and he's answered it the same way every time -- I want to believe he is right. Who among us is licking their chops to call the private investigator when life appears to be moving in the right direction? Who sits, daily vigilant for a sign of transgression, for a hair or two on the forearm to stand on end, to feel that "sixth sense." Who aches to sit outside a honky tonk bar in a trench coat with binoculars? Who invests in a home lie detector set just to keep "handy" by the bed? Only the miserable I suppose.

It's often said that the only people who really know what goes on in a marriage are the two who are in it. I know that I pray never to be the wife who has resorted to checking her husband's Internet history for child porn sites or titillating emails, the 1950's equivalent of lipstick on the collar. How can we possibly know -- and why should we be entitled to -- the delicate dance between what a wife knows, what she wants to believe, what she does believe and what a husband tells or obfuscates when infidelity is involved.

And so I argue that we leave Elizabeth alone. Whether John Edwards was carrying on the affair in 2006 may very well be our business. Whether or not his wife knew in 2006 is firmly HER business. That belongs in the category marked "inner workings of a marriage." She was not the one running for public office, she was doing what strong women like Silda Wall Spitzer, Cynthia McCain and countless other accomplished, well educated, dedicated mothers have done throughout history -- trusted their man, believed in him and supported his ambitions in numerous ways.

Like scores of public wives before her, she was no different than you or me. She wanted to believe that her marriage had what it took to go the long haul: that it could survive the unthinkable death of a child, a duel with cancer and then the heart-stopping news that the disease had returned in a more virulent form. And through all of that, I have to believe that what didn't kill them, made the good parts of their marriage stronger. And it set an admirable lesson for their children about life and perseverance, about strength and looking for silver linings while you stare down violent, black storm clouds. This is tough stuff. In the face of all of that "life-testing" can you imagine running an investigative behind-the-scenes check on your husband too -- just in case he was a philanderer?

And here is my other reason for defending enablers. The children. When backed into a corner, a mother lion will fight to the death to spare her cubs. It's programmed into human nature too. So whatever Elizabeth was doing, whenever she knew, whether or not she went on, with cancer, to campaign for her husband with this betrayal clasped in her breast -- whatever she did, you have to believe she was putting her kids first. And when you are the one left holding the bag of feces, after something unexpected blows up in the family's face, you will do whatever you can to make it alright for the kids, two of whom must be trotting off to school shortly, ready to face the judgment and scrutiny of classmates and parents. There is a fine line between sympathy and pity. And a good mother tries to mitigate that as well.

Yes, as much of a rubbernecking car wreck as this is -- and now that the wolf pack has been sicked on John Edwards to determine the lineage of this love child and who is paying whom -- now, I suppose some of it is our right as taxpayers to know. The hounds are already yelping in the distant brush. But it makes me long for the decades of discretion. I think nostalgically of the days when the secret service smuggled a breathy Marilyn Monroe into the White House. I yearn for the private and broad brush-stroked affairs of past presidents, well documented posthumously, but squarely off limits to the press corps of the time. When it comes to protecting the children, I think folks like Jackie O or Lady Bird got it right. Kick him in the scrotum behind the privacy of closed doors, but protect the children at all costs. Even if it means masquerading as an enabler.

UPDATE, 8-15-08, 10:20am:

To all the readers of my blog posts:

Firstly, I love your comments, so keep them coming -- you all have interesting, and diverse thoughts and opinions. This kind of discourse is fun. It's what keeps us alive as a society.

As a mother of four, one who is currently on vacation with all of her kids on what has been an endlessly rainy month where I am -- there is never any extended period of time during which to visit the bathroom by yourself, let alone think.

In reading all of your comments I wanted to add two thoughts that I'd originally had when I sat down (14 different times) to write my Edwards blog in between "Mooo..ooom, she's in my chair" and "When is dinner..."

Firstly, all of you who struggled with the word "enabler" and wrote about that -- thank you. One of the first thoughts I'd originally had when I read Quinn's column was how much I absolutely hate this new-agey, over-used, psycho-babbling word. Enabler-- what does that really mean anyway? It seems like a great word to deflect and dissipate blame from the sinner. Has the wife whose husband has been secretly binge drinking airline bottles of booze in the garage aided his addiction?

Is the mother who didn't find the pot in her kid's school locker an enabler? Some of us simply can't know everything about everyone. Surely we all have doubts about everything at some time, we all second guess ourselves, but I'd like to believe we are all guilty of trying to look for the best parts of our spouses, our children, our neighbors until we see the red herring.

Did the Edwards risk the Democratic nomination by hiding this knowledge? If, in fact, she DID know all in 2006, then I agree that was harmful to the American public.

My point is that we don't really know exactly what she knew then. And it isn't our place to pick over the bones of that one fact at this juncture. That is between them at this point and the damage is done. He didn't get the nomination so in this Greek play, the Gods of fate dealt their hand. America was saved!

What he did with Ms Hunter? Wrong, wrong, wrong. Shame, shame, shame. His actions are worthy of our microscope. He has been publicly castrated already and one can only guess what is going on behind closed doors. (And for those objecting to scrotum-kicking - relax -- don't be so literal, think figurative!)

My point is that we don't really know exactly what she knew. And there is no point in continuing to kick her now. What people do in the dynamics of a marriage is really their business. After the camera takes the confession, after the public figure is humiliated, after we all shake our heads and say "how is it possible these guys think it will never be discovered?" (Do politicians no longer study history, despite their hubris colored glasses?) it's time for us to back away from the bleeding body of the wife.

In fact, how about this theory? Has anyone considered that she didn't know anything in 2006, but in the face of all of this media attention, in all the hideous accusations that are raining down on a family with three innocent kids, perhaps she decided to present a united front and look like an "enabler" to protect them, not him. To make it go away faster. Because really it's all a mess.

A mother lioness will act before she thinks sometimes. She will throw her own body before the tusks of the wild boar to keep her cubs safe. And hasn't Elizabeth Edward's body taken enough blows by now?

Keep up the discourse -- you are a fun bunch. And thanks for reading.

Comments

[nadinesellers]

Lee Woodruff is apparently a real person with real emotions; her family, her husband are very fortunate to live with her. And i sense the same about Elizabeth Edwards, she is a full range being, complete with her own set of values.

Stone throwers crowd the public square and leave their personal manners exposed. The public will do well to re-examine their principles, throw forgiveness where no judgment grows.

France as well as other developed countries, puts emphasis on the professional capacity of the politician, rather than the private relations of the elected. It may serve the nation best to have a concerned diplomat in the power seat. All voyeurs out of the sleeping quarters, decency needs a rest.

[mairs]

All I can do is live in this century, in this country, in the here and now. Forgiveness is not mine to withhold or give, as I have nothing to do with the Edwards family. Living as I do, in reality, I know that a mistress, a baby, hush money, a home to keep them in, all would spell disaster for a presidential candidate. His selfishness and foolhardiness is stunning, given the stakes. This is not France, it is not 100 years from now. It is right here in the US, right now, and I would expect John Edwards to have been wiser than this. It has nothing to do with throwing stones, being holier than thou, being more or less European-like.

[Belisarius]

Ms. Edwards should run for the senate. Maybe from New York?

[FOXYLADY]

My Mom taught me, at al early age, not to judge anyone until you've lived in their shoes for awhile!! This taught me much and even today, in my late 70's, I adhere to the same edict. TO EACH HIS/HER OWN"......­.......unt­il it happens to you, whatever it is, you don't know how you'd respond....BESIDES, DOESN'T ELIZABETH HAVE CANCER? DOESN'T SHE HAVE YOUNG CHILDREN TO THINK OF? So some of you should just "shut up" and 'MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS'!!!

[Lindy222]

Quote: "With all due respect, protecting the kids is not an excuse for staying with a serial cheater."

Normally I would agree with this, at least for myself. But I can understand that someone else might feel differently, especially someone with two small kids and incurable cancer.

[BlueZoo]

All of the aforementioned women have done just what thousands of the rest of us have. It isn't right or wrong. It's simply choosing the devil you know over the devil you don't know. That may be rather simplistic but it's really easy to understand once you walk in their shoes!

[BlueZoo]

Additional point: All the comments re this being the Edwards' business are valid on their face; however, once John and Elizabeth Edwards decided to air their dirty laundry in public on television for all the world to see and hear, their business became OUR business! The fact they appeared in public and openly discussed this affair is reprehensible, especially considering they have children who should have been protected by their parents when this mess became public.

[todaysword]

My problem with Elizabeth Edwards is not that she stuck with John, or kept it a secret, or tried to protect her kids. It is that if she really DID know in 2006 BEFORE he entered the Presidential Race, that she STILL supported his bid for the presidency. He should NOT have run. His judgement is apparently hampered by ego but hers should not have been. It would have been a DISASTER if he had been the nominee.

[Collette777]

Excellent point... We really don't know when Elizabeth found out, and she seems to be someone who would give her last breath for those she loves. The body language that John Edwards displayed a few times when Elizabeth would introduce him for a speech - the way he'd sometimes give her the quick hard peck kiss then holding her by the shoulders almost point her off the stage -- spoke volumes...

Each affair is different... However, the hypocrisy of Edwards portraying himself as a devoted loving husband to his ill wife while sneaking around -- you can't hide a child! A friend of my son's -- a West Point Graduate with a degree in environmental engineering -- was killed last week in Afghanistan and this makes me want to shake Edwards and ask -- WHAT were you thinking? This election is not about YOU! Clinton was a womanizer, yet I think the whole Monica thing was a total of 10 hours time including phone calls. McCain will always be a loser for the way he dumped his disabled wife & child for a rich heiress half his age when in his forties -- it's hard to recover from that war hero or not. My grandfather was a war hero -- didn't do any of that crap. But, Edwards is the Grand PooPah on the list of fools. My final thought is this...
"If you know you're a d1ck -- don't run for president!"

[JJK]

Help me here. Is it "OK" if she found out during the campaign, not before it began? If so, then is it OK that she continued to advocate her husbands election and attack his opponents (which she did quite effectively, BTW), knowing that she was defending someone whose candidacy was based on a fundamental deception given the role that John Edwards had his wife and family play in that candidacy? If that's your postion, I disagree.

We don't know the impact that Edwards candidacy had on the race. Some speculate it hurt one candidate or another; others argue that it didn't. The bottom line is, we don't know. I don't think it's OK that she continued to enable him to go on. They weren't running for dogcatcher, they were running to be the 44th family in 220 years to occupy the executive mansion.

[breakingthrough]

With all due respect, protecting the kids is not an excuse for staying with a serial cheater. I left a cheating sob of a husband years ago when he thought I had no choice but to take his numerous infidelities because I was stuck at home with four little ones between the ages of 3 and 8. (Yes, that's four kids in five years). I fooled him. I left him and raised my kids alone. I started out with nothing but a high school diploma, got a job while my mother baby sat the youngest, earned a degree and carved out a career in a lucrative industry. I was young, however, and not fighting terminal cancer.

I have respect for Elizabeth Edwards no matter what her reasons for staying. Just don't tell me that it's for the sake of the children. Dealing with the tension this kind of union produces, the mistrust, the sadness and profound loss of "self" is more distructive to a marriage than the benefit potentially gained for the children. My kids turned out to be bright, productive, involved citizens of the world with a great respect for women.

What you're condoning is a cop-out no matter what you call it. Woman today don't have to stick it out as our grandmothers did. We have the strength and opportunity to do it alone and many times, it's the healthiest and wisest choice for the children.

[CarmanK]

This is just such stuff!! Elizabeth Edwards is a woman living with life threatening Cancer. She has faced her mortality and entitled to make the decisions that will protect her children. She has her priorities in order and I for one believe that she is entitled to make the decisions that will best care for her family in the future.
The fact that she loved her country enough to continue the battle to save it from "bumbling Republicans", speaks well of Elizabeth. She could have gone home, but she didn't. The people in New Orleans, the poor and the middle class of this nation owe her a debt of gratitude. She and John raised the level of discourse about the poor, health care etc...to a national dialogue.

John Edwards made a serious mistake in judgement. There is no evidence that he is a serial player. If anything, the size of the disparaging remarks, indicates that this is a rare "slip" by an otherwise honorable human being. John Edwards and "his friends" need to shut their mouths. The feeding frenzy needs to be over.
The child in all this mess has a right to her identity. If Reille continues to refuse a paternity test, then I would say, she is playing the "celebrity" game quite well!!! How many of you really want to continue to support her Claim to fame at the expense of the Honor that is due Elizabeth Edwards??

[Archie1955]

For Heaven's sake how many times do I have to say it, please leave them alone!

[ruchild]

cont....

And Lee is correct, women will just suck it up and carry on if it is perceived to be what is best for their children, regardless the consequences. If Elizabeth just learned of this and chose to say she knew since 2006, kudos to her, if she knew since 2006 and forgave him, well then, who are we to question her judgment? People do silly things under pressure and some people get caught up in their own reflection and believe the hype... While we as a people would like to think our elected officials are better than us, they are us, we elect them and we get the good and the bad and the normal joes in the process, deal with it folks, they are only human, as we all are.

Look in the mirror and ask yourself what you would of done in her place or even his....when backed into a corner, you would be surprised at what you would do, it is called survival.

[ruchild]

Okay, hoping not to double a comment. I think first some of you are having metaphor problems, as it isn't mother lion, but mother bear who protects her cubs, but that is splitting hairs and some of you must be frazzled by now.

When who knew what when does not matter now does it? It is all history, as is his run for office and unfortunately in our country at this time in history, there are some that will never be big enough to just let it go, to look past his personal peccadilloes (cheating on his loving supportive wife and shaming his kids for what?) to see beyond it, what should and probably does stick in the craw of many a person is the fact that he hid it and lied about it (whether this included his family these last 2 years or not is irrelevant at this point.) but he ran for the office of president, he should of come clean and let the chips fall where they may, at least he would of not of dragged down the mother of his children (Elizabeth) with him in the process.

to be cont.

[DeadDogDemocrat]

This is going to sound nasty, but part of the problem I have with this whole Edwards thing is whom he had the affair with. If we're going to be catty can we admit there are two grounds for infidelity which, if not justifiable, at least offer some mitigation? There's the "I'm sorry, the sex was so great I coudn't help myself" dalliance. And then there's the "Curse you, fate, how could you introduce me to my soul mate now that I'm married and have children" twist of fate.

Not all infidelities are equal. JFK wasn't right to bang Marilyn Monroe when he had Jackie at home, but I sort of understand it. Spitzer, on the other hand, paid hookers. FDR and Eisenhower's infidelities, clearly, were of the "twist of fate" variety (and for those who don't know the stories, neither cheated while president). One can lambaste Giuliani and McCain but they married their mistresses. Don't think we ever got the full story about Clinton (I'd guess it was a bit of both, but a point in Clinton's favor is that no one is talking).

And Edwards? Reilly Hunter? Ew. Should that matter? By the book, erm, no. If people had doubts about whether Edwards was a flake, though, they've now been settled. Realize that's cruel, but if we're going to be catty, well, why go all the way.

[WorkingNHMomof3]

There's blame for John Edwards and, according to Quinn, blame for Elizabeth as an "enabler," but I'm continually astounding that the other adulterer here, Ms. Hunter, is not getting her fair share of blame and shame. I think she and women like her are one of the biggest threats to women's rights because they erode the sanctity of marriage vows as much as the lying, cheating man. If the man is going to get his scrotum kicked, there should be a comparable kick in the croutch for these types.

[OklahomaGirl]

Someone should have encouraged her to read the Scarlet Letter instead of the Power of Now. Problem with the cult of the Power of Now, is that a small group of people feed off of the theory and support each other in their ideas. They forget that the general public doesn't buy their crap. They are supprised when their explainations for what they do aren't accepted. Poor Ms. Hunter, she interferred with another woman's family and now she's being called names. What did she expect? From what I read, she expected to move into Elizabeth's life, without doing any of the work I might add, and make John the next great man of the world. People she believed this. She would get him out of a "bad marriage" and make him great. She needs to understand she destroyed his life and his family and if the rumors are true, she brought another human being into this mess. The only people who need punishment for this are John and Ms. Hunter. They did the crime and others just have to suffer the fall out. I agree she is as responsibe as he is. They both were old enough to know better. Elizabeth found out 3 days after he announced. What was she suppose to do?

[waitforme]

Using the word, 'enabler', in relation to Elizabeth Edwards is irrelevant and reprehensible. It is name-calling and presumptuous. Personally, I don't care when she found out her husband was having an affair; presumably he told her it was over when he told it to her. I am guessing she didn't know about any possibility of any baby. If it was over, I don't care if she neglected to announce it to the media (why would she?). (I doubt she knew or 'knew' it was not over.)

An 'enabler' is someone who assists, even with double-messages, a chronic addict to maintain his/her addiction. John Edwards has not come across as a chronic addict (yet, in any case). Therefore, his wife cannot be said, in any respect. to be any kind of an 'enabler', and anyone who suggests it has something personal going on, I think, and/or doesn't know the definition of the word.

Especially, women should not be blaming women for their husband's lying to them. ESPECIALLY when they have FAR TOO MUCH ON THEIR PLATES already. Give this woman a break, won't both of you? (And also to that MSNBC guy, whatzisname, who said yesterday on his show, three-four times, that we shouldn't be blaming Elizabeth Edwards, protesting too much and thereby keeping it in the public -- what amounts to -- discourse. Keeping on saying that one should not speak about it, 'should not blame her', is just slanderous in itself.)

[apoyo]

It's more than protecting the children. It's about making sure the children have a good relationship with their one remaining parent. Elizabeth is facing her own mortality. Would she risk destabilizing their life over her own humiliation? Obviously not. But our own rubbernecking may do just that.

This holier than thou attitude some women portray is probably a reflection of their own episode of humiliation. Anger and revenge cannot be a motivation of your actions. Not when there are children involved. Mothers instinctively know that.

I feel for Elizabeth. For what she is facing. For having to deal with the possibility that she may not be around to see her young children grow up. A cheating husband is the least of her worries.

And why are we so ready to believe when he says he told her in 06? Isn't he just trying to cover his tracks? Even though she wasn't physically by his side during his interview last Friday, by making that statement he made sure that she in fact was.

Elizabeth is probably relying on the fact that he has been a better father than he has been a husband. When it comes to the children that is all that matters. It would behoove us all to leave them alone. He was never close to being in contention for the nomination so that is a non-issue. He did force certain issues to the forefront and for that his supporters should feel they got their money's worth.