Elizabeth Edwards And Hillary Clinton Made Essentially The Same Decision About Their Cheating Husbands: Why?
OK, here's the thing to focus on as this passing moment mounts to its climax: John told Elizabeth about the affair long before he declared for the presidency. Today's brou-ha-ha is old news to them. She knew about it the whole time they were out there, displaying their marriage and family, confronting her cancer with him by her side. She decided to go out on the campaign trail with him and support him with evident conviction and at the same time try to take possession of the health care issue knowing about his affair the whole time.
Insofar as this was an act of public deception, an act of private protection, she was as much a part of it as he was. Why would she do that?
Because, like Hillary, she understands that some things are a whole lot more important than private human sex acts. What Elizabeth's complicity in John's lies says is just what Hillary's loyalty to Bill said. When serious and intelligent women get close to powerful positions where they might actually be able to do good for millions of people--they commit to a complementary version of what their cheating husbands did in the first place: they put private self-indulgence way back in second place compared to the public welfare.
Good for them. Both of them.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I was divorced, decades ago. Already then it was a habit of people to put the blame on the spouse who was not engaged in adultery, rather than on the two, or more, adulterers in action. The pain, anger, loss, were compounded by this attitude. What now, these two people are not adulterers, they are *in love*! Make way for their love. Love is always legitimate. Oh, you, the spouse, are also in love? Your love has been proven over decades? You have built a life and a business together? You have helped him make his career? That is stupid, do not you see what he has done? Oh, and your children love their father? Too bad. Their father is now going to have a new family, and he, and his new spouse, can not get over their love, so, you, kids, get over your love of daddy already. Make no mistake about it, when you divorce your spouse you also hand over your children, and your familylife, forever. Holidays will be without your kids and even the grandchildren. Family reunions? You are no longer part of it. There is this predatory concept, that someone can swoop down, take a prey, and you are not allowed to fight back, or remain in position. Women like Lisa Druck and Monica Lewinsky are not innocent bystanders, or even victims.
Sexual affairs, even if publicly discussed, are still private. The statements that the sexual affairs of one person damage the whole party, in casu, all Democrats, are not true. If one is married to a man of position, no matter whether he became that man of position while you were married, or he was that already when you did marry him, you know that there are always people going after him - and not only women -. For a man, power is sexy. The whole issue, in this time, is rather silly. We accept as normal all kinds of sexual liaisons which previously were held to be wrong, and even punishable. Such as adultery. But suddenly it becomes an issue if we can use it as a political argument. For whatever reasons, both Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Edwards have chosen to remain in their marriages, and their husbands have not filed for divorce. These husbands could have easily done so today, irreconcillable differences? I do not consider Lisa Druck a victim, nor did I feel that Monica Lewinsky was a victim. They were both adults and they both knew that the men were married when they engaged themselves with them.
DZ-
Maybe I'm oversimplifying the situation.
What about guilt?...M
Is it simply men are dogs,...sn
Mike
It's not the extra marital sex, it the lies that go with it that bother me. Some couples agree to a separation of various sorts and they and their friends know what that means. But to do one thing and tell your wife and supporters another is betrayal. It is not OK to lie to people just because they are a women.
If someone will lie in one tough situation, what makes you think they won't lie to get out of another.
In a long marriage such as edwards, you go thru good times and bad times but deep down, just like you love your children when they do something wrong ,you still love them no matter what.. The ball is in elizabeths court now, she is a fine lady and deserves the best. ..If she can forgive him and I think she will, it will only happen once..If he does it again I bet the marriage is over.. Now we will see if its true love...
continued.
Your grandmother attends your father-in-law's funeral, your sister-in-law's wedding. All of your in-laws attend your grandmother's eightieth birthday party. Both sides of the family are involved with the children. You share friends, maybe going all the way back to high school.
Then, maybe you discover that your beloved is unfaithful. It hurts beyond words. What then? Does a decades-long love get turned off like a light switch? Do two intertwined lives just separate? If only it were that easy (I have wished and prayed that it WOULD be) - but it just isn't. Suddenly your old "if he ever did THAT, I would just leave" pronouncements about OTHER people's marriages seem very naive, outdated.
I have NO DOUBT political wives stay for the same reasons I've stayed - and my husband isn't anyone you've ever heard of, doesn't have any money. I don't think it's about politics and power for those women. I think it's about marriage, family, deep love, commitment, and forgiveness. It could be just that I'm not someone for whom money and power are important, but I don't believe money and power could POSSIBLY be enough to get ANYONE through this s**t. Only the things I've talked about above could be strong enough motivators because the darkness is simply TOO dark..
It's wrong to accuse these women of any other motives when you don't know any such thing.
Obviously written by someone who isn’t a woman with an unfaithful husband.
Here's what you don't understand.
Before you find out your husband's an adulterer, he's been your best friend forever, the man you loved enough to marry and always intended to be with until death do you part, your number one confidante and supporter. You know each other like no one else does. Some years have been much less happy than others, but you could never imagine loving someone else, loving them in that way that can bring tears to your eyes - and his - just thinking about it.
Maybe you conceive a child together (and can't imagine bringing a child into the world with anyone else), wait excitedly for it to be born, talk endlessly together about your hopes and dreams for that child, how this child will have opportunities you never had. You tag team changing diapers and getting up during the night to administer cold medicine or the eye drops for pink eye. Together, you make decisions about how to discipline your child, what values to teach your child, about chores and homework and school choices and curfews and activities and religious instruction or lack thereof.
All of your memories include each other, every job or career change, every new address, every triumph, every hardship. There are vacations and trips over the years. There are holidays with each family. Your extended families are blended, united through the two of you, have been for decades.
Once again, as has happened so often in political history, it's not the offense itself (adultery, break-ins at your opponent's headquarters, etc.), but the cover-up that brings the powerful down. Others have said this, but it bears repeating--the Edwards campaign was based, among other things, on the image of a loving husband and father. Assuming that he's telling the truth; i.e. the affair was brief and ended two years ago, why on earth did both he and his wife not consider that in an era of the 24-hour news cycle, the truth would come out?? I have to say that the timing of this news is fortuitous for the Democrats--most people are either on vacation or watching the Olympics!
She knew the potential damage to the Democratic party if
Edwards had won the nomination. Affairs like this always come
out. God forbid there'd been a love child. I don't have any
sympathy for her now that I've learned this.
Or it could be that very manipulative men, who are great at playing with people's emotions, also have the same effect on their wives.
Whatever their transcendent concern about health care or eductation or 2 Americas, etc., the moment the two of them decided to use their family and marriage as a proof of John's extraordinary goodness, they were selling crap, which had it been bought by a sufficienct number of primary voters, would have wrecked the democratic party's chances in the fall, and we all know it. Post Bill Clinton, any democrat that runs for national office with a mistress hiding out anyplace is going to get creamed by the press corpse. It's what they do. Has to do with who owns them..
Was the public's sympathy for Elizabeth battling incurable cancer supposed to counter all the negativity that exposure of adultry would have brought to the campaign? I mean, was that their plan? Or did they really think they were so clever the affair would never be found out?
Mr. De Zengotita:
Did Elizabeth and Hillary tell you this? I have never heard them give reasons for supporting their husbands despite the infidelities of these men.
I am a believer in the concept that no one else really knows what goes on between two people in a relationship. Elizabeth and Hillary mght have stayed because they simply lived out the "for better or worse" part of their marriage vows even if their husbands failed the "forsaking all others" vow. They might have assigned some forgiving context to sexual infidelity that Americans generally do not. Or they might have measured the whole man, their years together, their life investment in family and experiences and the potential of a future together rather than apart. They might have considered elements beyond the realm of those outside the relationship.
But for you to categorically and emphatically state that they "put private self-indulgence way back in second place compared to the public welfare" is troubling if you were not told this by Elizabeth and Hillary, or by persons with whom they had shared this first hand. Because then you are being condescending, patronizing - which diminshes the target.
Nothing could be more in the public welfare than a marriage (which are by nature private and self-indulgent) that lives up to its promise and its vows (even those broken and forgiven). Marriage cannot do that from second place. I know because i put two of them there.
Why? None of your business.
"they put private self-indulgence way back in second place compared to the public welfare.
so this is some "self-sacrifice" thing? that's pretty simplistic. of course we're all just speculating anyway.
something tells me there are 2 different motivations with these women, and neither has to do with the "public welfare."
elizabeth edwards has small children to think about. so her husband had a fling - doesn't automatically make him a bad father. should her children suffer for her ego? I think she was smart enough to realize that is a stupid move.
I think the motivation with hillary is quite different. I think she made the calculation that there was infinitely more power to be had by remaining married to a charming politician. this power duo's entire lives revolve around adoration from their subjects and all of the benefits that come with being big politicos and former members of the whitehouse. somethingtellsme that to hillary, the thought of another woman being married to bill and getting all of the perks that she feels she deserves is something that she would prevent with all of her might. no way is she going to provide an opportunity for that to happen by getting a divorce. it's her choice, and I’m not saying it’s wrong, but I really think that claiming clinton's decision was due to "public welfare" is a joke. it is clear as day that the clintons have always been about themselves and what's in it for them.
It would be better if boomer women would transition into the 21st Century and stop putting AMBITION ahead of their children and self-esteem. My generation, sadly, are becoming facilitators of this kind of conduct by making excuses and, in Hillary Clinton's case, actually going after the women who "out" this conduct. Elizabeth Edwards' blog clearly indicates she believes John Edwards to have been "setup" from the get go -- and she may be correct. As with Hillary, a constant and immediate default whereby they believe ONLY the younger woman is responsible for luring their precious boy -- translates into a PASS for them and a lowering of acceptable standards of conduct in and outside of our White House.
You rightly point out Elizabeth didn't stand beside John Edwards as a further validation of him/his conduct aka Mrs. Spitzer and Mrs. Clinton -- ostensibly "for the sake of the kids." It isn't. The kids would be better off with strong women who move on and remake their lives -- instead of being props for narcissists and egomaniacal men who not only compromse their familes, but their Party and its votors/donors -- and, in the end, our Nation. This speaks to CHARACTER and why Americans chose a mediocrity in George W. Bush, after Bill Clinton's debasement of our White House and the Impeachment trauma which took the focus away from terrorists and other matters -- SELFISHLY.
Amen. You nailed it.
Hillary's hubby was a serial adulterer; I hope Edwards does not fall into that class.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
