Seriously???

Complicit? That is harsh. If I were in the unfortunate position of being in her shoes, I would also want to keep it private for myself and family. Given that, I don't think he should have run for president. Of course it would be found out! (Not that she shouldn't be blamed for that).

[SuzySunshine]

Re: Seriously???

I agree that he shouldn't have run knowing what he had done, he had to have known it would come out at some point. Of course maybe he is that pompous and thought he could keep it under wraps. But picking on Elizabeth is just wrong.

If I was her age and possibly dying would I want to break up my family? Probably not, my kids would already be going through a lot of turmoil, they don't need a divorce too.

Re: Seriously???

It sounds like rotten tomatoes from people bitter about having hitched their wagon to a sleazy guy. In poor taste for them to be saying it, and poor taste for the 'journalists' to cover it, IMO.

[Rapunzel]

Re: Seriously???

You just don't go after the victim of an extramarital affair.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

[Sheherezade]

Re: Seriously???

If I was Elizabeth - and if her diagnosis is fatal - I would use my remaining time to just SKEWER the press about this. Someone needs to point out how far the press standards of decency and privacy have fallen. The idea that anything is fair game to sell a paper or magazine has given us an extremely crass media.

What on earth is she supposed to do??? This is one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations. No matter what she does, someone will find fault. It isn't anyone's business how she handles this. John is fair game (it was stupid for him to run) but Elizabeth?? No way. The press and pundits need to get a grip. I do think the American people have some limits in what they will tolerate and this crosses the line.

[Vanquisher]

Re: Seriously???

I agree with what everyone has said. She is the victim and does not deserve to be villified, let alone lumped into the same category as her sleazy, scumbag husband.

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: Seriously???

I admire her strength in her battle with cancer.

I feel sorry for her for being cheat on.

I have no judgment on her decision to stay with him. Don't admire it; don't don't less of her for it. In the end, that is an intimate, personal decision and I can't step into someone else's marriage and make that kind of call.

However, I don't respect her decision to stand by her husband in his deceit when he was going for his nomination. But that was my very first reaction--I sure didn't come to that conclusion after considering the "wisdom" of the press. Personally, I think the act of most character would have been to tell him: "No way. You lied to me, but you're not going to lie to them. Or, at least, I won't be part of this--you're jeopardizing the election if you get the nomination."

But, no matter how she handled things, I respect her more than I will EVER respect him. Or the press.

[rainbabies]

Re: Seriously???

i saw this yesterday...and i just didn't get it.

i would have done the same thing...i think it was very selfless of her..she was trying to protect her family.

Re: Seriously???

However, I don't respect her decision to stand by her husband in his deceit when he was going for his nomination. But that was my very first reaction--I sure didn't come to that conclusion after considering the "wisdom" of the press. Personally, I think the act of most character would have been to tell him: "No way. You lied to me, but you're not going to lie to them.

He claims he told her before then - other "sources" close to Elizabeth claim that's not the case. Since his scenario is self-serving, I have no trouble doubting it and believing that she didn't know / he didn't come clean until he ABSOLUTELY HAD TO.

[Flynn]

Re: Seriously???

However, I don't respect her decision to stand by her husband in his deceit when he was going for his nomination. But that was my very first reaction--I sure didn't come to that conclusion after considering the "wisdom" of the press. Personally, I think the act of most character would have been to tell him: "No way. You lied to me, but you're not going to lie to them.

He claims he told her before then - other "sources" close to Elizabeth claim that's not the case. Since his scenario is self-serving, I have no trouble doubting it and believing that she didn't know / he didn't come clean until he ABSOLUTELY HAD TO.

As I read the article again this is the conclusion I came to as well.

Picking on Elizabeth is WRONG.

[Sheherezade]

Re: Seriously???

Regardless of when she knew, I take issue with the idea that Elizabeth owes "them" anything - (as in "you've lied to me but you aren't going to lie to them as well..." ). It was John's decision to run. They are married but that doesn't make one spouse responsible for the actions of the other. It is an illusion that you can control the actions of your mate - something I'm sure Elizabeth is confronting now for more important reasons than political.

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: Seriously???

However, I don't respect her decision to stand by her husband in his deceit when he was going for his nomination. But that was my very first reaction--I sure didn't come to that conclusion after considering the "wisdom" of the press. Personally, I think the act of most character would have been to tell him: "No way. You lied to me, but you're not going to lie to them.

He claims he told her before then - other "sources" close to Elizabeth claim that's not the case. Since his scenario is self-serving, I have no trouble doubting it and believing that she didn't know / he didn't come clean until he ABSOLUTELY HAD TO.

My understanding, as it had been reported in the press, was that she had known for quite some time, and well-before he made his run for the nomination. If that is not the case, then my basis for judgment is invalid and I would withdraw it. It hinged on the presumption that she knew. If she didn't know about the situation, she cannot be faulted for implicitly endorsing his hiding of it from the voters.

Re: Seriously???

Regardless of when she knew, I take issue with the idea that Elizabeth owes "them" anything - (as in "you've lied to me but you aren't going to lie to them as well..." ). It was John's decision to run. They are married but that doesn't make one spouse responsible for the actions of the other. It is an illusion that you can control the actions of your mate - something I'm sure Elizabeth is confronting now for more important reasons than political.

ITA.

I don't fault her for her actions at all. Anyone who dares judge her had better have gone through 1) the death of a child, 2) a terminal illness, AND 3) a public affair. Otherwise, there is no place for trying to say what she should have done. She is not a politician. She is a woman trying to make the best choices she can for herself and her family in the face of more stress and grief than most of us will ever experience.

I think what Edwards did was despicable - and he never should have run - but of the five couples I've known over the years whose husbands had affairs, three of those couples, years later, have very sweet, enviable marriages. I have no idea how they did it, and I'm not saying I'd make the same choice, but apparently it's not impossible for a couple to recover from an affair. Considering what the Edwards kids also have been through, I can see why Elizabeth might decide it was less traumatic to stick by him.

[Meenah]

Re: Seriously???

Even if he had won and been elected President, it still is not anyone's business what Elizabeth does or does not do about her marriage. He had an affair, that was BAD, but she doesn't owe any of us an explanation. I'm not saying this because he is a Democrat, I would feel the same way no matter who it is.

[DrWahoo]

Re: Seriously???

Affairs are very complex things, which prying eyes cannot always understand. IMHO, our society today really has a delusional reality about relationships and marriages in general because there is a tension between Judeo-Christian values and humanist secularists. We uphold the Christian concept of marriage which is based on monogamy but fail to really understand the role of God and the Bible in that covenant relationship.

But to be very frank, no marriage is affair proof, especially now that we have discovered the emotional affair. We have for centuries in this country promoted and condone informal bigamy or the old Madonna, Whore complex. As my father has always said you cannot legislate morality.

In Edwards case she may know in her heart that her husband was going to cheat. It couldn't have been easy for him to go through all the crap they went through either, he had physical and emotional needs that simply were not being met. So the real evil person is the one who felt the need to expose the affair to the public. Then everyone is forced to take sides and argue who was the victim, when sometimes adults just make bad choices.

Unfortunately, economics and politics forces people into alliances that the public may find unsavory. Let's keep it real some women have no problem with their husbands screwing around as long as the bills are paid. We as the general public really don't need know that some of our politicians do in their private lives, because frankly it is irrelevant as long as they represent us and do what we elected them to do.

There is an essence of utilitarianism in this. For example, I think it would have been totally counterproductive during the Civil Rights Movement that in fact Dr. King had several illicit affairs with white women. (Thanks G. Gordon Liddy for that tidbit). Or was it really relevant that almost all of our founding fathers slept with their slaves. Despite what we learn in history class every leader is dirtier than baby's poopy diaper. lol.