Comments on: Now Elizabeth Edwards is to Blame?

By: Anne

Anne — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 06:04:00 +0000

Elizabeth Edwards is an enabler. She should have stopped him from running. And now, because of both their actions, Hillary Clinton lost her rightful place as the nominee for the Democratic Party. It was selfish and mean of the Edwards to do this. I feel sorry for neither of them.

By: Elaine

Elaine — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:18:00 +0000

While I agree with everything that's been said, I also wonder what our greatest outrage is about: the fact that he cheated? the fact that he ran for president despite knowing that his affair placed the Democratic party at great risk? the fact that he lied about his affair when the Enquirer first came sniffing around? the fact that no apology he offers now can undo the sense of betrayal many of us feel?

For some reason, it seems important to me to pinpoint the source of my anger and I just don't know yet.

Elaine
wisewomencoffeechat.com

By: Karen

Karen — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 06:07:00 +0000

You’re right on. Besides, we don’t really know what else Edwards is lying about. He lied about the affair–do we believe him when he says he that he told Elizabeth way back when? Maybe she didn’t know when he decided to run. (Unlikely, I know), but the bottom line is none of us know or will ever know what really went down. To blame Elizabeth for her husband’s escapades and lapses in judgment is just stupid and unfair. If we could ever know all the facts, then maybe we would be in a position to judge some of her choices. . .but we don’t and we won’t. And she certainly isn’t responsible for his infidelity.

What did you think of Maureen Dowd’s column on Edwards/Rielle yesterday?

By: Velma

Velma — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 00:21:00 +0000

Great post. I don’t know why I keep being astounded by all the asshattery out there, but I am.

By: Motherhood Uncensored

Motherhood Uncensored — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:59:00 +0000

It's amazing how they can twist this one.

He's a big boy. He made his own decisions. She didn't let him do or not do anything.

Adultery isn't illegal -- so what if she knew and backed him to run. There's plenty worse.

If Bush's only downfall was being a cheater...

By: Tracee

Tracee — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:54:00 +0000

I don't think it's surprising. It was inevitable.

Look how Bill's escapades tarnished Hillary's reputation. She was a cheater by association. Many people were afraid she would bring his sexcapades back into the public light.

Blame Elizabeth? I've seen it all over the Internet today - she should have had more sex with him, how dare she help him cover it up, he must not have been happy with her.

Typical.

By: Shonda Little

Shonda Little — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:51:00 +0000

I want to lead of by saying, “Suck it, Sally!”
Her claims are insane.
I, too, am upset with John Edwards. Like you, it’s not because of his mistakes. It’s because he knows that we live in the information age. This isn’t the media that covered the Kennedy Administration.
With that said, what does Sally suggest Elizabeth do, keep John from ever working again because he was unfaithful? Does she now know that some of this country’s most successful leaders have been lying, cheating dogs, i.e. Ben Frankin, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower? Should the Colonies kept Ben Franklin at home rather than going to France to bargain for this aid in the Revolutionary War?
I’m not suggesting Edwards is a Franklin. I am suggesting that, as pissed as I am at John for making the party vulnerable for his own ambition, I don’t think infidelity makes one incapable in whatever job they so choose.
Like you said, what if every scorned spouse kept their unfaithful partner from pursuing their ambition? How many doctors would be out of work? I can think of three in my little bitty town.

By: anniegirl1138

anniegirl1138 — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 19:47:00 +0000

What amazes me is that we the people get worked up about what boils down to someone else's marital issues.

If E. Edwards knew of the affair and was backing her husband's run - which includes a message that is more talk than action on his part - than she is not innocent of deception. I don't know if I would call it enabling but certainly she knew he was being a hypocrite and helped him with the facade.

Frankly, I wonder if she weren't terminally ill if there would be the outrage on her behalf. I posted this before but terminal illness does not make saints out of people or change the reality of what it means to be married. There are still issues and give/take and all that other stuff going in and the diagnosis is just one more component.

They had to both want the White House to have gone ahead knowing that he could be found out. You can't discount her ambition because she is ill. They gambled. They lost. Fortunately it is something that won't hurt the Dem chances in November the way it would have if Edwards were the nominee.

Marriages don't break down without the participation of both parties to varying degrees. We don't know why the affair occurred or why they reconciled or why they took the risk they did. Only they do. But in my opinion, it is "they" not "him" or "her". Marriage is a partnership.

OT: Why are hypocrite politicians still such a shock to us?

By: Michelle

Michelle — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:47:00 +0000

Wow, that is awful! That mentality is mind boggling to me. According to them, men never have to be held accountable for their actions. Sheesh.

By: Daisy

Daisy — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 16:55:00 +0000

Well said. I was upset by the idea of blaming Elizabeth, as well. She was seriously ill with cancer! How is that “enabling”? The major difference between Edwards and Bill Clinton is that Edwards handled this personally long before it became public. Elizabeth didn’t have to find out from the press.
I think the W.Post had “two 50s and no 60s” a la Field of Dreams.