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.
Maybe I'm oversimplifying the situation....Maybe I'm just too base.
What about guilt?...Maybe Mrs. Edwards is feeling guilty.......I suspect that's the case with Hillary. I'm going to leave the readers with the responsibility of coming up with the answer to the question, "guilty.., for what?"...You know what.....
Is it simply men are dogs,...sniffing out every possible partner?...I have to think not...You know the old snide remark about John Kennedy...becoming President so he could have sex with Marilyn Monroe in the White House swimming pool...why else would he want to be President?....Why would Bill Clinton want to be President, if he couldn't have his cigar smoked in the oval office?...Some of our political miscreants confuse power and sex....or, maybe they don't.
Mike
If someone will lie in one tough situation, what makes you think they won't lie to get out of another.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.